Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL

Lords Amendment considered and agreed to.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

QUEEN MARY COLLEGE BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

ASHDOWN FOREST BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Art Education

Miss Fookes: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will ask Her Majesty's Inspectorate to prepare a report on the structure of art education.

Mr. Guy Barnett: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will ask the Inspectorate to prepare a report on the structure of art education.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): No, Sir. A major review of the whole field was carried out by the Coldstream Committee which published its report on the structure of art and design in 1970. Action is continuing.

Miss Fookes: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is widespread alarm and despondency in art education, particularly about the suggestion that two A-levels should be the prerequisite for entering to study for the diploma of art and design? Will my hon. Friend reconsider this?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am aware that there are some widespread misconceptions about the recommendations and status of the report, which is advisory. It is not the intention of the National Council for Diplomas in Art and Design to confine entry to its courses after 1976 to holders of two A-levels but to admit also alternative qualifications some of which it intends to settle in consultation with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Under-Secretary aware that there is widespread agreement with what the hon. Lady the Member for Merton and Morden (Miss Fookes) said about the concern in the art world? It is not only about the question of two A-levels, which I am glad to hear are not to be compulsory, but also about cutting down on part-time teachers who are absolutely essential to art education and could be used a great deal more in other forms of education. Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that no action is taken to cut the number of part-time teachers?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: As far as I know, there is no recommendation to cut the number of part-time teachers. There is another Question on this subject on the Order Paper. Perhaps we can discuss the matter more fully then.

School Building Standards

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what deputations she has recently received to discuss the adequacy of the standards laid down in the current school building regulations.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): None, Sir.

Mr. Spearing: Is the right hon. Lady aware that within the last six months both her Under Secretaries—the one sitting next to her and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead—have refused to give me an interview to discuss very important matters concerning standards of school building?
In view of recent events, and as the pressure on architects to skimp on maintenance, on standards, and on the standards laid down about the numbers of pupils, are quite unrelated to educational needs, should not her hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and the right hon. Lady herself see me about this subject?

Mrs. Thatcher: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has just indicated that he is unaware that he has ever refused the hon. Gentleman an interview.

Mr. Spearing: Quite wrong—he has.

Mrs. Thatcher: There may be some misunderstanding. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to come and see me.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: As regards the school building programme, will my right hon. Friend look closely at the facilities being provided for teachers and staff in schools? Does she recognise that many of these facilities are hopelessly inadequate in many schools, such as Hands-worth Grammar School? Although I agree that the provisions of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act do not apply to educational establishments, should not those minimum requirements apply?

Mrs. Thatcher: Those minimum requirements are for different circumstances from those prevailing in schools. I am aware of the circumstances at Handsworth Grammar School, which my hon. Friend raised with me before. Hitherto the standards have been well above minimum standards, but I know that some difficulty arises and this was pointed out in the debate we had on the cost limits. I hope that the recent increase of 22 per cent. will help to overcome the difficulty.

Mr. Stallard: Is the right hon. Lady aware that there is widespread alarm and despondency in my constituency following last week's disaster at Camden School for Girls? Is she aware that the technical study she has promised to institute will leave many questions unanswered? Will she reconsider her decision and have a full-scale public inquiry in view of the repercussions of that accident on many similar structures?

Mrs. Thatcher: As the hon. Member knows from a reply he has received, we thought it best to set up as a matter of urgency an inquiry conducted by the Building Research Establishment into the technical reasons for the failure. We expect that to take about two months. I have undertaken to publish the report. When it is published and we know what it says, I shall decide whether further action is required.

Special Schools

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools for the mentally handicapped she has visited in 1972 and 1973.

Mrs. Thatcher: My Ministers and I have visited 12 special schools in this period. Among those visited by myself were two concerned with mentally handicapped children and two with educationally subnormal children.

Mr. Jones: Is it not alarming that in hospital schools as many as 75 per cent. of the teaching staff can be unqualified, a great deal of the equipment often unsuitable and dozens of children totally ignored educationally? What urgent and special measures will the Secretary of State make to improve education for the mentally handicapped? Is it not shameful that the Government can build their Concordes and allow the Lonrho directors to get away with murder while these luckless kids are pushed into dark corners?

Mrs. Thatcher: The whole building programme for special schools has been increased substantially. The building programme that I have approved for the next three years is 45 per cent. greater than that for the last three years, which is a great achievement. We have just moved the capital programme for hospital schools from the regional hospital boards to the Department of Education and Science and a circular about hospital schools is to be sent out comparatively shortly.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is the Secretary of State aware of the grave shortage of speech therapists in many of the schools for handicapped children? Will she comment on it?

Mrs. Thatcher: We have just accepted some of the recommendations of the special report on speech therapy, namely,


to have a unified service operating under the area health authorities. Another suggestion was to increase the number, but I believe that would be the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the standard of hospital teaching in my constituency is exceptionally high and that many children who are severely subnormal are getting as far as fractions in their maths and are able to read with great facility?

Mrs. Thatcher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. The hospital school that I saw comparatively recently was excellent and I confirm what she said about the teaching. It may be that some of the teachers have not got the special qualifications for teaching these handicapped children, but they are nevertheless very good, devoted and dedicated teachers.

Wooden Hut Classrooms (Derbyshire)

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps are being taken to assist Derbyshire County Council in its proposals for the replacement of 40-year-old wooden huts used by schoolchildren as classrooms in the county of Derbyshire.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: My right hon. Friend has recently announced projects for the improvement or replacement of primary schools in Derbyshire to the value of over £1¾ million for the 1975–76 school major building programme.

Mr. Skinner: Perhaps the Minister would like to know that 27 out of those 28 schools are in Tory-held constituencies and were approved by a Tory county council. Is he aware that now that his right hon. Friend has set up this technical study into the various structures of schools he should look into the question of half-inch thick plywood that is used in these 40-year-old temporary wooden sheds? Is he aware that 150 of these were in existence three years ago when the Tory Government came to power and that at the latest count there were still 150?

Mr. Loughlin: I do not think that my hon. Friend likes the Tories.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Whoever was responsible for putting up these buildings 40

years ago, it was neither myself nor the Government. The important point is whether they are being replaced. Replacements which are already programmed will provide new school places for nearly half the Derbyshire children. [Interruption.] The hon. Member must wait to hear the answer to his question before rejecting it. Nearly half the Derbyshire children who are now being taught in these old wooden huts will be relocated when these programmes come into operation.

Mr. Rost: The majority of parents in Derbyshire are well pleased with what the Government have done to provide new building. However, they object to the lack of consultation concerning the arbitrary zoning in some areas, particularly in the Kirkhallam area.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to hear that the parents in Derbyshire are satisfied with the Government. I am sure that they are also satisfied with the representation of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost). I assure him that neither my right hon. Friend nor myself act in an arbitrary manner.

Teachers (Recruitment and Training)

Mr. Duffy: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will seek powers to make herself responsible for the recruitment and training of teachers.

Mrs. Thatcher: No, Sir. Under Section 62 of the Education Act 1944 I have a duty to secure that sufficient facilities are available for the training of teachers. Recruitment and deployment in the schools is essentially a matter for the local education authorities.

Mr. Duffy: Does the Secretary of State recall her Folkestone speech last month in which she argued for a more economic deployment of the present teaching force? This is simply not borne out by the experience of Sheffield where the teacher/pupil ratio in sixth forms is half the national average. Is she aware that it has been revealed that the teacher/ pupil ratio in the primary schools for the coming year will be considerably higher than was originally planned and that this seems entirely to falsify her Folkestone argument?

Mrs. Thatcher: I do not think so. That argument was put as a result of a number of surveys in the schools by Her Majesty's Inspectorate when it was revealed that the increase in the number of teachers in schools was not wholly reflected in the reduction in the size of classes. Of course, arrangements made by different education authorities vary. Where good practice exists we naturally wish to see that it is maintained and that difficulties are drawn to the attention of the authorities.

Mr. Hattersley: Does the Secretary of State's speech to the AEC last week mean that she is prepared to revise upwards the teacher training figure which appeared in her White Paper?

Mrs. Thatcher: The speech pointed out that we have taken an initial step to reduce the numbers going into the colleges of education in view of the forecasts of 10 years ahead. It also pointed out that after two or three years we may need to have another look.

Expenditure

Mr. Carter: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will publish her estimate of the percentage of the gross national product to be devoted to education during each of the next 10 years.

Mrs. Thatcher: Figures are not available for 10 years ahead. However, in 1971–72 public expenditure on education was 6·5 per cent. of the gross national product. Over the subsequent five years expenditure on education is projected to grow at 5·0 per cent. a year in cost terms. This may be compared with the illustrative growth rates for the economy as a whole over the same period of 3·5 per cent. and 5·0 per cent. referred to in Cmnd. 5178.

Mr. Carter: Is that not an evasive reply? Are not the Government intending to cut the percentage of GNP devoted to education? Following the proposals for adult and nursery education, should we not be thinking in terms of expanding this percentage?

Mrs. Thatcher: Far from being evasive the reply I gave was a full one, bearing in mind that Governments do not publish forecasts of growth of the economy. They make assumptions about it and

we have made two sets of assumptions, one of 3·5 per cent. and one of 5 per cent., for hon. Members to compare with the growth rate of education. The expected growth rate of education expenditure is 5 per cent. and that is compared to a 5 per cent. increase assumed for the GNP.

Mr. Marten: Was it not the previous Government which set the pattern for looking five years ahead and not 10 years ahead on these matters?

Mrs. Thatcher: Indeed, and it was also the previous Government which left me with plans for spending very much less on education than I am now spending.

Mr. Ellis: Will the Secretary of State give equivalent figures for adult education?

Mrs. Thatcher: I cannot give those figures at the moment.

Secondary Reorganisation (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

Mr. Golding: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she is yet able to approve the proposals for the reorganisation of secondary education in Newcastle-under-Lyme.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: My right hon. Friend will give her decision as soon as possible on these proposals. The LEA withdrew two of its previous proposals in February of this year. The authority was informed of certain difficulties on 30th May and we are still awaiting a reply.

Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware that there is grave anxiety in Newcastle-under-Lyme because of the delay, and is he further aware that this anxiety is particularly marked in respect of the Wolstanton-Watlands project which I understand was to have started this year and to have been completed by 1975? Is he also aware that £300,000 has been approved for the project and that if work does not get under way very quickly the unsatisfactory conditions in which teaching is taking place and has taken place for 20 years will have to continue?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: As the hon. Gentleman will know, there has been considerable local difficulty and conflict over the proposals. Owing to the withdrawal


which I have mentioned, we have faced particular difficulties. But I am aware that the hon. Gentleman and the local authority are particularly anxious for a decision on the proposals affecting Wolstanton Grammar School, and if it is possible to consider those proposals separately my right hon. Friend will give her decision very soon.

Colleges of Art

Mr. Barnes: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further representations she has received following the recommendations of the Pooling Committee on staff/student ratios in colleges of art.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: A further 55 letters have been received, more than half through hon. Members, since the reply to the hon. Member on 13th March. This was also a topic raised with my right hon. Friend by a deputation brought by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond).

Mr. Barnes: With reference to the question asked earlier by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) about the position of practising artists teaching part-time in art colleges, is the Minister aware that some of the assumptions on which the recommendations of the Pooling Committee are based are not valid for the art colleges because of the much longer hours of contact between students and teachers in them than in other subjects? Does not the Minister think that he should advise local education authorities to treat those recommendations of the Pooling Committee with some caution?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I should like to stress to the hon. Gentleman, who I know takes a keen interest in the subject, that the implementation of the Pooling Committee's recommendations on student/staff ratios rests with the local education authorities. The recommendations are purely advisory. The report said that in no case should teachers be made redundant. It is certainly my view that the employment of practising artists as part-time teachers is a great gain to art education.

Mr. Grimond: But does not the Minister agree, when he recommends that no teacher should be made redundant, that, if the local authorities have to come down

to anything near the ratio, it of course means that they will retain their whole-time teachers, most of whom are on long-term contract, and get rid of their part-time practising artists?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is not my recommendation; it is the recommendation of the committee. [Interruption.] That is an important distinction. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's prognostications, there are other means of getting to the recommended ratios—by normal wastage and retirement, for example.

Mr. Moyle: Would the Minister care to give an undertaking that he will use the offices of his Department to ensure that, before even any part-time art teachers are declared redundant, there will be consultation between the local education authority and the appropriate associations representing the art teachers? Will he bear in mind that the artist has always required a patron? If one form of patronage is to go, will he take the initiative and make sure that another form to replace it is under consideration?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I cannot give undertakings on behalf of local education authorities, but I think I have made it quite clear that I regard the use of artists in a part-time capacity as very valuable, and I am sure that local education authorities will take note of those remarks.

Student Grants (Married Women)

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will make a statement on the latest developments in her correspondence with student bodies concerning the ending of discretionary grants and improving grants for married women.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: My right hon. Friend has told the National Union of Students that discretionary awards are now the subject of consultation between the Department and the local authority associations; and that the whole basis of the married women's grant will be examined in the forthcoming triennial review.

Mr. Judd: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware of the very deep feeling in the student community about


the problems surrounding discretionary grants? Can he assure the House that as he goes into consultations with the local authorities about discretionary grants the Government have a completely open mind on the issue?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: In spite of the guidance that has already been given by the Department, I am aware of variations in practice, which do not always appear to be justified. In accordance with a recommendation of the Expenditure Committee on further and higher education, I am exploring with the local authority associations whether stronger and more detailed guidance should be given.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a very difficult subject which is causing a great deal of disquiet among students? Is it not time for the abolition of discretionary grants?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Their total abolition would involve an astronomical sum, running into hundreds of millions of pounds. But I am willing to discuss the whole question of discretionary grants with representatives of the National Union of Students if they agree to discussions opening on the triennial review, as I hope they will.

Mrs. Castle: How can the right hon. Lady possibly justify penalising women students just because they marry? Will the hon. Gentleman tell his right hon. Friend that women totally reject the concept of dependency and demand to be treated as individuals in their own right on an equal basis, whether they are married or single?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: With the complete support of my right hon. Friend, I have already said in the House that when the next review opens we shall consider the anomalous position of the married women's grant. Perhaps it is fair to point out that the anomaly was created in 1968 by the Labour Government when they pegged this rate of women's grant at the 1965 rate and other rates of grant were allowed to go up. The right hon. Lady must accept her share of responsibility for this anomalous situation.

Deaf Children

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is satisfied with the educational provisions for deaf children.

Mrs. Thatcher: Much good work is being done but there are also some problems to overcome. As I said in reply to a question by the hon. Gentleman on 3rd April, these are being studied in the Department. Following this, I shall decide on any action to be taken.—[Vol. 854, c. 60.]

Mr. Ashley: Is the right hon. Lady aware that there is an acute shortage of qualified teachers for the deaf, and that a daft Burnham award has deprived qualified teachers of a special award, thereby exacerbating the shortage? As deaf children suffer enough from educational deprivation, will she do all she can to take urgent action to ensure that there are enough teachers for deaf children?

Mrs. Thatcher: I cannot comment on the Burnham aspect of the hon. Gentleman's question, but I agree that there is a shortage of teachers for deaf children. The working party to which I have referred, which has a number of Her Majesty's inspectors on it, is especially considering new diploma courses and part-time courses for this purpose.

Mr. Money: Will my right hon. Friend consider approaching the Independent Broadcasting Authority to see whether some of the off-peak time on the new local radio stations could be used to try out pilot programmes for the parents of deaf children to give them some training in some of the educational needs their children may have?

Mrs. Thatcher: I at least undertake to draw the attention of the authority to my hon. Friend's suggestion. What it wishes to do about the suggestion is of course a matter for it.

Mentally Handicapped Children

Mr. Haselhurst: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she is satisfied that local authorities have the most complete information about the numbers and needs of


mentally handicapped children living in their areas; and if she will make a statement.

Mrs. Thatcher: Local authorities, through their medical, educational and social services, and through the hospitals, normally identify mentally handicapped children at an early age. I believe that local education authorities are giving a high priority to meeting the educational needs of these children.

Mr. Haselhurst: But is it not true that as information on the subject increases, more and more different classifications of mental handicap are being discovered, and that local authorities may not have within their area sufficient of a particular type to be providing the most appropriate form of attention? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend consider holding an inquiry into the matter?

Mrs. Thatcher: We are not encouraging multiplication of classification of handicap, because it is not thought wise. I know that there is still a shortage of places for many children suffering from mental handicap, which is why we have raised the special building programme. Of the bids we have received for 1973–74, one-third were for projects for the educationally subnormal. I hope that the extensive action on which we are embarked will do more, quickly, than a full-scale inquiry could do.

Energy Requirements (Research)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on the number of universities in the United Kingdom undertaking research into the United Kingdom's energy requirements.

Mrs. Thatcher: I understand there are at least seven university institutions doing research of this kind.

Mr. Douglas: I thank the right hon. Lady for that reply. Will she address her attention to two matters? First, does she agree that the urgency of developing our offshore industry requires a great deal more resources of a university character to be devoted to research? Secondly, can she say whether the reviews of the central policy of the review unit,

which has examined energy policy, will be transmitted to the universities?

Mrs. Thatcher: The universities are not normally slow to take up any views of that kind. I do not think that we need transmit them through the University Grants Committee. I am inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman on the first part of his supplementary question.

Mr. Dalyell: Does not the right hon. Lady recognise that there is a problem and that, because of the nature of the quinquennium, universities are unwilling to finance comparatively new projects out of funds which many people in the universities think are allocated? Is there not a case, because of the importance of North Sea oil, for some special Government grant?

Mrs. Thatcher: No. It is reasonable to expect that from the quinquennial funds, which provide for a considerable expansion, the universities should put high priorities on those projects which can help commerce and industry.

Consumer Education

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will make a statement in the light of the Right to Consumer Education put forward in the Consumer Protection Charter adopted on 28th May by the Council of Europe.

Mrs. Thatcher: This proposal of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe is currently under consideration by the Council's Committee of Ministers and it is not yet clear to what extent member States can implement it. My hon. Friend knows that responsibility for the curriculum in the county schools in England and Wales is in the hands of local education authorities.

Mrs. Oppenheim: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the inclusion of consumer education in secondary school curricula would be extremely valuable? Does she agree that if that were done we might have a new generation of consumers emerging which will have some idea of their rights and obligations? While I accept that my right hon. Friend has no powers to direct curricula, will she consider sending an advisory circular from her Department informing local


education authorities that the Council of Europe is recommending that children should be trained in consumer affairs?

Mrs. Thatcher: The recommendation has not yet gone through the Council's Committee of Ministers and, therefore, it is still being considered by them. I agree that it is advisable to have some education on consumer protection. I think my hon. Friend will agree that it need not necessarily be taught as a distinct subject. It will often come into home economics, craft courses and general study. A good deal is already being done in those subjects.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will the right hon. Lady say how far mathematics teachers are teaching children about the percentage rate of increase in food prices over the last two or three years? The right hon. Lady talked about mentally retarded children being taught fractions. Perhaps they can be taught how to read the cost of living increase.

Mrs. Thatcher: I expect so. I hope that teachers are also teaching them about increased production.

Disabled Children (Integration)

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will provide funds to encourage and enable local education authorities to integrate physically disabled childen into ordinary schools.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It has long been the policy of the Department that handicapped children should not be placed in special schools if they can be satisfactorily educated in ordinary schools. Most of the special facilities required for them in new or existing school buildings can be provided within normal cost limits, but additional allocations have been made in some cases.

Mr. Janner: The Minister happily accepts that wherever possible disabled children should be absorbed into the normal atmosphere of normal schools. Does he accept that schools which do that successfully, including many in my constituency, perform a public service? Does he agree that more schools should be encouraged to do so? Further, does he accept that there is a heavy burden of care and of finance resting on the

schools that perform this public service? Will he encourage schools to do more and will he provide more finance for the purpose?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: A letter was sent to local education authorities which have the responsibility in this matter in July 1966 about the need for buildings to be accessible to the physically handicapped so as to make it possible for more of them to be educated in ordinary schools. We encourage authorities to improve access to existing buildings as well as new ones. When plans are submitted for new special schools, our experience is that with a little encouragement here and there the authorities respond. Of course, we have no power to enforce directly our wishes.

Sir R. Thompson: Will my hon. Friend consider giving even further publicity to what he has just said? Does he not agree that one of the most useful things he can do is to encourage the people who are handicapped, who form a substantial part of the population, by ensuring that they do not face from the outset a separate career and a separate existence? Does he accept that anything which he can say publicly to encourage local authorities to do their duty in this respect will be most gratefully received by these unfortunate people?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. This is not a sphere of the education service which falls directly within my responsibility. I shall pass on my hon. Friend's remarks to my noble Friend. I concur entirely with his remarks.

Student Grants

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations she has received on the level of grants to students.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Since the interim settlement announced by my right hon. Friend on 15th May, she has received about 50 letters from hon. Members, members of the public, students' associations and other interested bodies.

Mr. Molloy: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that they all condemn that paltry award. Is he aware


that the current situation in our universities, including the student body and the staff, is now very serious? Can he tell us whether he has plans for trying to assuage the serious situation regarding student grants?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am sorry to have to correct the hon. Gentleman. While it is true that the majority of the replies suggested that more should be done for students, other replies, including letters from vice-chancellors and students, indicated that they thought the award was about right. I regret to say that others thought it was too high.
We are concerned to review the position of student grants. The interim settlement of £10 million extra was, in the circumstances, a remarkable achievement. My right hon. Friend intended it to be an interim settlement. I hope that we shall have a full and frank exchange of views with the representatives of the National Union of Students in the near future.

Mr. Grieve: Might there not be more money available in the form of grants for serious students if the university authorities were more particular in sending down those who forfeited the education which they are receiving by misconduct and by aggression against people who are going to exercise the right of free speech in the universities?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The vice-chancellors, whose responsibility the universities are, have made it clear how strongly they condemn the recent incidents interfering with freedom of speech which have been perpetrated by a small minority. While we accept that the university authorities must be firm with the minority of trouble-makers, we must always be sure that we are utterly and completely fair to the majority who also condemn these incidents.

Mr. Moyle: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that he must be out of touch with feeling in higher education if he thinks that the award has been accepted with good cheer by the authorities or the students? Does it not now appear, as a result of the discussions which have been taking place, that the idea of the parental contribution causes more hardship to students than any other aspect of student grants? Will he undertake that that aspect

of grants will be considered in the near future?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: In the interim settlement we raised the threshold so that parental contributions start from £1,500 residual income. That was a great relief to a number of students. Some students will receive as much as an extra £60 because of that. The hon. Gentleman suggested that I am out of touch with university opinion. I have indicated the contents of the letters which we have received. My experience—and I have been recently to more than a dozen universities and colleges—is that many students are quite happy with the increase they have received.

Metropolitan Architectural Consortium

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she last met the Chairman of the Metropolitan Architectural Consortium for Education.

Mrs. Thatcher: I have not met the chairman in that capacity.

Mr. Cox: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the very deep concern which the chairman has expressed over the cuts in the school cost limits? As something has to suffer when forcible costs are cut, does not the right hon. Lady agree that she has some obligation to say what she thinks should be cut? For example, does she think that classroom space, staff facilities and the quality of materials ought to be cut? Surely she has some obligation and it is her duty to give a lead in such a matter.

Mrs. Thatcher: Not merely have I given a lead, but I have increased the cost limits by 22 per cent., making an increase in total since I took office of some 58 per cent. Even before the latest increase in the cost limits, 97·6 per cent. of the projects last year were actually started.

Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Lady has received a letter from the chairman, written after the 22 per cent. cost increase was announced, which is described as inadequate. How did the right hon. Lady reply?

Mrs. Thatcher: The letter was acknowledged. The chairman sent me a


copy letter which I understand she had sent to other people, and naturally I acknowledged it.

Mr. Spearing: Will the right hon. Lady confirm that in her letter she stated that she had nothing to add to what she had said in the debate? In view of my earlier question, will the right hon. Lady now agree to see a deputation from the Metropolitan Architectural Consortium for Education to discuss this matter?

Mrs. Thatcher: No. I agreed earlier to receive the hon. Gentleman, and that I will do. I think that he will have plenty to say.

Art Teachers

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many full-time and part-time art teachers are at present employed in colleges of art in England and Wales.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The provisional total of full-time teachers in art establishments was 2,381 in March 1971. In addition, a number of teachers of art are employed in the art departments of polytechnics and certain other education establishments but separate figures for these, and for part-time teachers, are not available.

Mr. Mitchell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that reports are coming in from all over the country that there is to be a considerable reduction in the number of art teachers in the term starting next September, particularly because many local authorities seem to be dismissing or declaring redundant large numbers of part-time teachers? What is the hon. Gentleman going to do about it?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: If local authorities are declaring teachers redundant, they are acting contrary to the recommendations of the committee set up to consider the matter. They are free to do it, but I cannot answer such vague accusations. I am willing to look into any particular case which the hon. Gentleman cares to bring to my attention.

Mr. Moyle: Can the hon. Gentleman now give an answer to my earlier question? I did not ask him to give undertakings on behalf of local education authorities but asked him to use the good offices of his Department to secure, if

possible, undertakings by local education authorities that they would not regard part-time art teachers as available for redundancy without consulting the appropriate associations representing them. Will he now undertake to use the good offices of his Department both in that and on the patronage point?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Whom local education authorities consult must be a matter for them. I can only repeat that it would be a great tragedy for art education if distinguished artists no longer gave their services part-time in art schools.

Nature Conservancy

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent discussions she has had with representatives of environmental organisations about the future of the Nature Conservancy.

Mrs. Thatcher: Recently, officers of my Department and of that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment have consulted the Natural Environment Research Council, the Nature Conservancy Committee and the staff interests concerned about the detailed arrangements for implementing the Government's decision concerning the future of the Nature Conservancy.

Mr. Dalyell: Now that the complex arguments have been fully deployed, is not this one occasion in politics when a Government could honourably change their minds?

Mrs. Thatcher: I do not think at the moment that there is any question of the Government changing their minds. I believe that the Bill has just passed through the other place and will be coming before this House.

Medical School Places (Women Students)

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many applications were received from women students for places in medical schools during each of the past four years; and how many were accepted.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Within the scheme run by the Universities Central Council of Admissions, the numbers of


women applying to read medicine for the four years from 1969–70 to 1972–73 were 1,805, 2,091, 2,642 and 3,192 respectively; the corresponding acceptances were 660, 731, 880 and 909. The total numbers of women accepted to read medicine in the United Kingdom in these years were 778, 861, 1,019 and 1,030 respectively.

Mr. Wainwright: I am delighted by the speed with which the hon. Gentleman read out that answer. Does he not agree that it is deplorable that in this country, when we are so short of doctors, we cannot even find more places for women in our medical schools? When will the Government do something about providing more places to ensure that more women can take up medical courses which they are willing to take but cannot do so because of the attitude of the Government against women doctors?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The whole question of women in medical schools is being examined and I do not wish to anticipate the advice of the Select Committee or the Green Paper which the Government intend to publish. But I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that women formed 26 per cent. of the applicants in 1969–70 and 28·6 per cent. in 1972–73 in UCCA terms, while for admissions, the proportions were 27·4 per cent. and 30·8 per cent. In terms of United Kingdom totals, the admissions were 28·3 per cent. and 31·3 per cent. The point is that a higher proportion of women applicants were admitted than in the case of men applicants.

GREECE, PORTUGAL AND SPAIN

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek a meeting with the Heads of Government of the members of the European Economic Community to discuss their policies towards Greece, Portugal and Spain.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): No, Sir.

Mr Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is a disappointing reply? While not condoning the nature of the regimes of Eastern Europe, I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does

not agree that in Western Europe, where our influence is greater, we should work for the elimination of dictatorships which are an affront to the name of democracy and that we should not take actions which could be taken as an endorsement of dictatorship, like sending troops to Greece, recognising the new Greek regime, and embarking on the ridiculous junketings now taking place between this country and Portugal.

The Prime Minister: The arrangements between the EEC and the three countries mentioned are clearly defined and they concern economic relationships.

Sir F. Bennett: Among the criticisms of possible ventures, could not the visit of the Leader of the Opposition to Czechoslovakia be included?

The Prime Minister: Czechoslovakia is not one of the countries listed in the Question.

Mr. Michael Foot: Since the right hon. Gentleman has often made speeches about Europe speaking with one voice, what objection has he to trying to get Western Europe to speak with one voice on the question of the imprisonments and projected trials in Spain, where many people are charged with no other crime apparently than that of engaging in trade union activities? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be a good idea if he could get people who respect freedom in Europe to speak out on this matter?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The Heads of Government at the summit meeting last September spoke with one voice and said that full membership of the EEC must depend on democratic institutions. That is one voice of the Community, and it is clear.

CHINESE FOREIGN MINISTER (TALKS)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his official talks with the Chinese Foreign Minister.

The Prime Minister: As I told the hon. Gentleman on 12th June, my conversation with the Chinese Foreign Minister, which took place on Friday 8th June,


covered a wide range of subjects of common concern. The details are confidential. I have accepted an invitation from the Chinese Prime Minister to visit China. The exact dates remain to be settled.—[Vol. 857, c. 294.]

Mr. Dalyell: In dealing with the Chinese, is not candour the best approach? Did the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to make it clear that the British dislike of China's atmospheric nuclear testing was as great as the British dislike of French nuclear testing?

The Prime Minister: The question of nuclear armaments for testing was not raised in the talks either by my right hon. Friend or by me.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Would it not rather embarrass talks by my right hon. Friend if the advice of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) were followed and the policy of the Government was the elimination of dictatorship?

The Prime Minister: I think my hon. Friend has touched upon a very important point which perhaps right hon. and hon. Members opposite ought at some time, not necessarily urgently, to make up their minds about. If we are to have nothing to do with any Government in the world when we disapprove of some of their actions, there would be precious few countries with which we had any relations at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRALIAN STATE PRIME MINISTERS (MEETINGS)

Mr. Robert Taylor: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement following his meetings with the Prime Ministers of the Australian States.

The Prime Minister: I was host at a lunch at 10 Downing Street on 7th of June for the Premiers of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia and other leading representatives of the Australian States. Representations on constitutional matters have been made on behalf of the Australian States at both ministerial and official level and my colleagues and I have undertaken to give these representations full consideration.

Mr. Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am naturally very pleased

to hear of the detailed discussions which he had with these distinguished visitors? Can he confirm that, while we in this House are always prepared to admire and respect the legitimate aspirations of any nation to control its own highest judiciary, we in this House or Her Majesty's Government are not able to influence what appeals are or are not heard by Her Majesty's Privy Council?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right. There are constitutional implications in the representations which have been made by the Premiers or their representatives of all the Australian States. The view of Her Majesty's Government, and I hope it will be the general view of the House, is that we have no desire to cling to any powers on the statute book which may still be there nor have we any desire, either as a Government or as a Parliament, to become involved in internal differences of opinion in Australia. I hope that this will govern our actions.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Is the Prime Minister aware that the present Australian Government are more than capable of dealing with these anachronistic State bodies?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that many Australians would share the view of the hon. Gentleman about the nature of the States. It is a fundamental part of the constitution of Australia to have the Commonwealth Government and the State Governments. The view which we have expressed is that, where differences arise on the constitutional level, we would hope that they can be sorted out between Canberra and the State capitals.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Would my right hon Friend consider—if these complicated constitutional matters have to be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—recommending that the Judicial Committee sits in Australia and not in Whitehall?

The Prime Minister: That is certainly a proposal which could be considered and on which I would take the advice of the Lord Chancellor and of the legal advisers to the Government. I would also take into account any representations made by the Australian Government and the


State Governments. This is something to which we should certainly give full consideration if the final decision was that the Privy Council should be consulted.

Mr. Heffer: Would not the Prime Minister agree that the answer he gave was correct in the sense that, if Britain can join the Common Market and give away some of our constitutional rights to the EEC, it is obvious that the question of the future constitutional rights of the States in Australia must be a matter to be settled by the Australian people?

The Prime Minister: I admire the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity in bringing the European situation into any question. I can assure him that our European policy and membership of the Community has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the question of the relationship between the Australian States and the Commonwealth Government. Anyone who has been in Australia for any time knows how deep are the feelings in some, perhaps all, States, because all States, whatever their political complexion, have made the same representations. There are strong feelings indeed about this.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER OF ICELAND

Mr. Ewing: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek an official meeting with the Prime Minister of Iceland.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to seek such a meeting.

Mr. Ewing: May I ask the Prime Minister to reconsider that answer seriously? Is he not aware that there is a great danger of relationships between two nations that have been friendly over many years being damaged almost beyond repair unless the Heads of the two States take action and meet each other? May I further ask the Prime Minister to comment on the decision of the Foreign Ministers in Luxembourg yesterday to delay the tariff reductions on Icelandic fish products until 15th November unless Iceland settles her dispute with Britain and West Germany? Would not the right hon. Gentleman describe this as some form of blackmail?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is standing the whole matter on its head. No one has deplored the strain

in relations between the two countries more than this Government, the whole of the House of Commons and the British people. It is through no fault of our own. We have followed completely the proper constitutional processes. The original agreement with Iceland allowed that if there was any difference we should go to the International Court. We took the dispute to the Court and we got a decision from it. It is Iceland which has refused to carry it out. We cannot be accused of blackmailing anyone. It is understandable that the Community should not make special arrangements for Iceland at a time when this dispute continues because of the Icelandic view.

Mr. Laurance Reed: Is the Prime Minister aware that the intensity of life in the sea has declined by 50 per cent. in the last 20 years and that, if this overkill continues, there will be very little left for countries like Iceland and Britain to squabble about? Will he reflect upon the fact that, while the Duke of Edinburgh is supporting a campaign to prevent the destruction of the whale, the Foreign Secretary is promoting a policy which inevitably means a free-for-all plunder of marine life?

The Prime Minister: I cannot in any way accept that interpretation of Her Majesty's Government's policy. We as a Government have been foremost in leading meetings and making arrangements concerning conservation in the seas. The International Court, having considered this matter, put a limit on catches from the area. We have agreed to abide by that limit. Indeed we have gone further in negotiations and said that we would abide by a lower limit. I do not see that there is any reason for criticism of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. James Johnson: Is the Prime Minister aware that, since the Navy went in on 19th May, not a single warp has been cut on any British vessel, be it from Hull, Fleetwood, Grimsby or anywhere else? Does he agree that it would be unnatural to expect this lull to continue until after the Santiago conference in 1973–74? Will he consider whether we should search diligently once more to get talks going? Does he agree that it is most important that we should meet Icelandic Ministers or that the respective


Prime Ministers should meet to get down to talks on a proper limitation of the catches in this area?

The Prime Minister: I know that there has been no stronger supporter of the fishermen's case than the hon. Gentleman, and I would have thought that he would support Her Majesty's Government in the actions we have taken on the many occasions we have tried to carry through successful negotiations and failed, not because of any lack of will on the part of this Government. As for the resumption of talks, the question is not about the level at which they should be resumed but whether they should be resumed at all. We are prepared to resume but the Icelanders will do so only on the basis that the Navy is withdrawn from the area. The area is the high seas and the Navy has every right to be there. We are prepared to withdraw if the Icelandic Government will say that British fisherman will not be harassed by their gunboats. The Icelandic Government will not give that undertaking. If they would do so the Navy could be withdrawn and we could go to the negotiations straight away.

Oral Answers to Questions — WANDSWORTH

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Prime Minister if he has any plans to visit the London borough of Wandsworth.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Mr. Jenkins: If the Prime Minister changes his mind and makes plans to visit Wandsworth, may I ask him whether he is aware that he could be taken, in many parts of the borough and particularly Putney, to flats where the rents have been quadrupled in the last few years? Since the Prime Minister no longer shares the laissez-faire political philosophy of his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), is it not possible to make a change? Could he not take effective action to protect people in these flats, many of whom are his own supporters?

The Prime Minister: Since the rents have been raised in the last few years, it must have been under the Labour Government just as much as under this one. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that

there are owners or landlords who are breaking the laws of both this and the former Government, he has a duty to report this so that action can be taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — SECURITY (DIPLOCK REPORT)

Mr. Gorst: asked the Prime Minister when he expects to receive the report on security from the Diplock Commission.

The Prime Minister: I assume that my hon. Friend's Question relates to the reference which I announced on 7th June. The Security Commission is already engaged on this and it will submit its report as soon as it can.

Mr. Gorst: While I appreciate that the Prime Minister will not wish to make any comments about the matters under consideration by the Diplock Commission, may I ask him whether he can nevertheless give an assurance that there will be no prior collusion between either the security forces or the police on the one hand and the newspapers on the other if it involves methods such as we have been told were used by the News of the World to obtain information in this case?

The Prime Minister: I must confess to my hon. Friend that I am not entirely clear about the purport of his question. Matters of collusion between the police and so on would in themselves be a breach of the law, and if he has any evidence of this it ought to be brought to public notice so that the Director of Public Prosecutions can take action. I have told the House that all the evidence in the possession of the security forces or the police will be made available. If there is other evidence or matters on which the commission wishes to ask questions or endeavour to obtain evidence or information, it will be given every assistance.

Mr. Lipton: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Diplock inquiry is unlikely to achieve any useful result until and unless the police authorities secure the return to this country of Colin Levy and Norma Levy? What action is being taken to effect their return?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, warrants have been issued for their arrest. It is not for the


Government but for the police authorities to act in an endeavour to get these people back to the country. Scotland Yard has already denied reports which appeared in the Press over the weekend that these people have been interviewed by the security service abroad. That is not the case.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA

Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order. I understand that a number of Members, including myself, submitted questions to you, Mr. Speaker, this morning on the important matter of the reason for the recall of Sir Denis Greenhill from Rhodesia. You, Sir, in your discretion, very properly disallowed them.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that it is the convention of the House that no reference is made to a Private Notice Question which has been refused.

Mr. Callaghan: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker; I was not aware of that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We all live and learn, Mr. Speaker.
What I wished to ask was whether, in view of the importance of this matter and the fact that the House would not apparently have known of the visit if it had not been for the "leak" from Rhodesia, the Leader of the House or the Prime Minister would convey to the Foreign Secretary the fact that we should like a full explanation of what took place and why the House was not informed before the debate takes place tomorrow so that we may see in what circumstances discussions had been going on.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): Perhaps I may help the House. A two-day foreign affairs debate will begin tomorrow. It is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to open the debate—in other words, to speak first—and it will be his intention during his speech to deal fully with the matter which the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has mentioned. I think that that would be for the convenience of the House, and I hope that hon. Members will accept it.

Mr. Harold Wilson: While no one may question your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and although we know that in all these matters you are concerned with the other business of the House as well as the time taken on statements, nevertheless, as the Leader of the House has made a quasi-business statement, would it not be more convenient if we had a statement from the Foreign Secretary tomorrow before the debate begins, instead of during the debate, which will range widely over important issues of foreign and commonwealth affairs? We know why the right hon. Gentleman cannot do it today—he is not in the country. If necessary, I might seek to ask a Private Notice Question on business tomorrow, a practice which I think is normally accepted. We might well have gone through the two-day debate without knowing about the Rhodesian visit but for the "leak".

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the two Front Benches to twist the rules of the House in this way? Permission to ask a Private Notice Question was apparently refused but in fact the question is being asked and answered in a twisted way, which has done harm—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a matter for me. It is the convention, I think, that on points of order questions may be asked about business. That is all that has happened today, and it is all I shall permit. The House has a great deal to do today.

Oral Answers to Questions — WELSH AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That the matter of the Steel Industry in Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration.—[Mr. Prior.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, at this day's Sitting, Proceedings on the North Wales Hydro Electric Power Bill, set down for consideration at Seven o'clock by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, shall, instead of being considered at that hour, be considered at the conclusion of the Business of Supply; and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business) shall apply


to the Proceedings on the Consideration of the Bill for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the Business of Supply or, if the Business of Supply is concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the completion of the Business of Supply.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

3.37 p.m.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I know that it is unusual for procedure motions of this sort to be debates, but I believe that a strong principle is involved and therefore I intend to make a short speech. I recognise the importance of the business which is to follow, but, because of the importance of the principle in protecting the opportunity of Members to raise matters on the Floor of the House which affect the interests of their constituents, I make no apology for causing slight delay in proceeding with the other business.
The House will be aware that, under the Standing Orders, private business set down by the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, when opposed by individual Members, is normally dealt with at 7 p.m. The sort of private business to which the relevant Standing Order applies is business promoted by public corporations, local authorities and other public bodies. Often the business contained in such private Bills is of little consequence, but now and again they involve matters of great public importance and of public policy.
Recently such a measure was the Mersey Docks and Harbours Bill. The United Reform Church Measure also was of national importance. Other examples are the Thames Barrier and Flood Prevention Bill and the British Railways Bill. At 7 o'clock today we should have dealt with the North Wales Hydro Electric Power Bill, which contains matters of considerable public importance. It is a matter of principle that a protest should be made when the Standing Orders are put aside in this manner because it affects the rights, duties and responsibilities of Members, and they should not be swept aside in this fashion.
The normal practice with Private Bills set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means is to take them on alternate days —Government days and Opposition Supply Days. Today happens to be an Opposition Supply Day and under the

Standing Order the 7 o'clock business was down for today. Last year there was no shortage of Supply Days. In fact, we were able to lend the Government two-and-a-half days. It cannot therefore be argued that we are short of opportunities to discuss this business.
The motion is the sort of motion that was considered by the Select Committee on Procedure in the Session 1971–72. The Select Committee considered whether it was right to defer opposed private business until after 10 o'clock at night so as not to interrupt the business of the Government or the business of Supply. The Select Committee—a distinguished body of hon. and right hon. Members—considered the evidence and, in paragraph 8 of its report, came to the conclusion that:
The loss of opportunities to debate delgated lgislation has led to a breakdown in that part of the process of legislation, and Your Committee are accordingly concerned to safeguard proceedings on private legislation. They recommend that there should be no change in the time at which the House has at present an opportunity to debate business which although on occasion of apparently minor importance, is often of national significance.
That report has never been debated by the House, but the Leader of the House, in answer to a Written Question, said that he accepted the report and went on to say:
There may, however, be occasions when it would be appropriate to continue to follow the recent precedents of deferring opposed private business by motion until after Government business has been disposed of."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November 1972; Vol. 847, c. 43.]
That has occurred on several occasions. The House, unwisely in my view, agreed to a timetable motion to get through the Industrial Relations Bill and the European Community legislation. I do not believe that it can be justified as a normal method of interfering with the rights of individual Members.
I hope that the Leader of the House will give an assurance that the procedure of putting down motions of this nature will not be used frequently. There may be occasions of urgency when we want to have a full debate without the business being interrupted—such as on Rhodesia —but those occasions must be rare. I hope that we shall be given an absolute assurance that this procedure will not be followed except in matters of such importance.
The right of individual Members to oppose private legislation is important. Most of its goes through undebated on the Floor of the House at any stage. Some private legislation deals with vital matters of public importance, and we must be careful that we do not take away the opportunities for the individual Member —in the exercise of his duty to protect the interests of his constiutents—to debate private legislation at a reasonable time, at 7 o'clock, and not in the late evening when it is virtually impossible to maintain a quorum for such a debate.

Sir Robin Turton: There is a great deal of good sense in what has been said by the hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved), but I appreciate that there are special reasons why this course is being taken on this Opposition Supply Day.
I remind the House that the Government Chief Whip and the Opposition Chief Whip made a combined approach to the Select Committee on Procedure to change the rule. Having taken evidence, we came to the conclusion that it would be wrong for that change to be made. The Society of Parliamentary Agents said that the change would be against the interests of promoters of Bills.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will give us the assurance that the hon. Gentleman has requested and also the opportunity at some time to debate the recommendations of the Select Committee on this matter so that the views of the whole House may be obtained.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): The House should be grateful to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) for raising this subject and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton). Although the hon. Gentleman may be causing a degree of inconvenience to hon. Members on both sides of the House—perhaps more so to those on the Opposition side—he has raised an important issue, and it is right to spend a little time discussing it.
The hon. Gentleman asked for the assurance that this motion did not detract from the Government's acceptance of the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure. I willingly give him that assur-

ance. I always find it difficult to assess the balance between the rights of private Members to discuss these matters and the rights of the Opposition to have their maximum time. It is difficult for the Leader of the House to balance these considerations.
I had thought that today was an occasion when we could take the private business at 10 o'clock. I am in no way detracting from the importance of the business, which affects several hon. Members' constituencies and has a wide constituency interest for a good many people throughout the country.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend will accept my assurance that the Government are prepared to honour the undertaking that I gave in answer to a Written Question from my right hon. Friend last November. It is the general rule that we should take private business at 7 o'clock and not put it off until 10 o'clock. There will be exceptions to this rule and today happens to be one of them. This is a busy time in the House and there is important business in front of us which I hope we shall get through in good time.
I hope that no one will feel that the Government do not consider this to be an important matter both on the procedure side and also from the point of view of those who are concerned with the North Wales Hydro Electric Power Bill. I hope that with that assurance the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will allow the debate to continue.

Mr. Skinner: Would the Leader of the House explain why he and other hon. and right hon. Members from time to time get terribly pompous about the sovereignty of this place when concern is expressed about private business coming on at a late hour, whereas, since we joined the European Community, we have been subject to countless regulations, orders and directives, some of which have come before the House at 2 o'clock in the morning? Why is there this contradiction in the importance attached to private business and the unimportance attached to matters of national sovereignty?

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That, at this day's Sitting, Proceedings on the North Wales Hydro Electric Power Bill, set


down for consideration at Seven o'clock by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, shall, instead of being considered at that hour, be considered at the conclusion of the Business of Supply; and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the Proceedings on the Consideration of the Bill for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the Business of Supply or, if the Business of Supply is concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the completion of the Business of Supply.

DIRECTORS OF INSOLVENT COMPANIES BILL

Mr. Greville Janner: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to directors of insolvent companies.
The Bill requires disclosure by certain company directors of their part in depriving the company's creditors of their money. I shall speak briefly, but this is a matter of importance to many millions of people who are owed money by companies or who are employed by companies which go into liquidation not necessarily as a result of fraud but as a result of the failure of the directors of the company properly to conduct the company's affairs. As the law stands, these directors in most cases can immediately set up the same business under another company name, with the same limited liability, and incur further debts from the same people without full disclosure of their part in the previous disaster.
The number of liquidations concerned in the last 10 years is just over 10,000. The number of directors concerned we do not know, because the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry says that he regrets that the information cannot be ascertained without undue expenditure of time and effort. When I asked how many directors had been required to pay out of their own resources deficiencies of companies put into compulsory liquidation during each of the last five years he regretted that the information was not readily available but said that inquiries would be made of official receivers and he would write to me when the information was to hand. Unfortunately that time has not yet arrived.
The object of the Bill is simple. At present company notepaper and certain other documents must contain the names of directors. I am asking in the Bill that

in addition it should be stated on such documents the number of times each director has held office in companies put into compulsory liquidation during the previous five-year period. This would not penalise the innocent because they could apply for exemption, but it would mean that those who use the present system of limited liability to take away the money of others would at least be held in the limelight and would, I hope, be inspired to indulge in such action far less.
I wrote to the appropriate Minister on this subject and I received in reply a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Limerick who said that he disagreed with my proposal but hoped that some way could be found
of improving disclosure in this area, because I agree that adequate disclosure to shareholders has a vital role to play in improving the efficiency of company management.
The noble Lord, with respect, totally missed the point. It is important that shareholders should be protected and that companies should be efficiently managed. It is of even greater importance that the jobs of my constituents should be protected and, in addition, that those ordinary people who buy goods from companies which then go into liquidation and who cannot obtain spare parts or service in respect of those goods should be protected in their very much greater numbers.
The range of companies which the Bill seeks to encompass runs from the small builder who takes money from an individual and then goes into liquidation in the middle of a job, to companies such as Rolls-Royce, the liquidation of which left many small companies which supplied Rolls-Royce with spare parts in dire straits and consequently left many thousands of people in my constituency and others without jobs.
The Bill will make life more difficult for the man who seeks to put his limited liability before the welfare of those who are owed money by the company.
The CBI recently commented on this—and unfortunately that comment has not been given the airing it should have been given. The report of Lord Watkinson's Committee said:
It appears to be too easy for directors of a company which has failed to meet its liabilities. financially or otherwise, or which is


under investigation by the Department of Trade and Industry, to set up a new company or to be appointed to directorships in other companies. Consideration should be given to the introduction of a provision in the next revision of the Companies Act which would prohibit the appointment of any such individual to the board of another company except with the approval of the Department of Trade and Industry.
I agree with that comment, but there is a much simpler and more immediate step which can be taken by a simple addition to one section of the Companies Act which would require fuller disclosure.
The matter was set in proper perspective a long time ago by W. S. Gilbert in "Utopia Limited". In concluding this brief submission to the House, I hope I may be permitted to read three verses which I think set the matter on a proper footing and with a relevance which has not changed over the years
Some seven men form an Association
(If possible, all Peers and Baronets),
They start off with a public declaration
To what extent they mean to pay their debts.
That's called their Capital: if they are wary
They will not quote it at a sum immense. 
The figure's immaterial—it may wary
From eighteen million down to eighteenpence.
I should put it rather low;
The good sense of doing so
Will be evident at once to any debtor. 
When it's left to you to say
What amount you mean to pay,
Why the lower you can put it at, the better.…
They then proceed to trade with all who'll trust 'em,
Quite irrespective of their capital
(It's shady, but it's sanctified by custom); Bank, Railway, Loan, or Panama Canal. 
You can't embark on trading too tremendous—
It's strictly fair, and based on common sense—
If you succeed, your profits are stupendous—
And if you fail, pop goes your eighteen-pence.
Make the money-spinner spin!
For you only stand to win,
And you'll never with dishonesty be twitted,

For nobody can know,
To a million or so,
To what extent your capital's committed!
Then comes the final verse:
If you come to grief, and creditors are craving
(For nothing that is planned by mortal head
Is certain in this Vale of Sorrow—saving
That one's Liability is Limited),—
Do you suppose that signifies perdition? 
If so you're but a monetary dunce—
You merely file a Winding-Up Petition,
And start another Company at once!

Several Hon. Members: Encore!

Mr. Janner: The encores have been given through the centuries. They have brought no result whatever. Therefore, I hope that my Bill will bring some results for it will remove the cosmetics from the unacceptable and ugly face of capitalism. It will let directors of defaulting companies stand in the limelight and will make their position infinitely more uncomfortable. It will protect people and therefore I hope that this brief and admirable measure will be passed in due course on the nod. In the meantime I hope that I shall be given leave to introduce it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Stanley Orme, Mr. Tom Driberg, Mr. Clinton Davis, Mr. Donald Stewart, Mr. Peter Archer, Miss Betty Boothroyd, Mr. J. D. Concannon, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Mr. John Prescott.

DIRECTORS OF INSOLVENT COMPANIES

Bill to amend the law relating to directors of insolvent companies, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 20th July and to be printed. [Bill 165.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[22ND ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

REGIONAL POLICY

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) to move the motion, I must inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the names of the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and add instead thereof
acknowledges the declared intention of the European Communities to ensure the harmonious development of the economies of Member States by reducing the differences existing between the various regions, welcomes the progress made by the EEC Commission towards a Regional Development Fund, and recognises that this House will wish to debate these issues.

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Peter Shore: I beg to move
That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government not to accept any decision of the EEC Commission affecting the regional policies of the United Kingdom until this House has debated and approved it.
It will be noted, not only from the words in the motion but from the way in which we have entitled it, that this debate is about United Kingdom regional policy and the EEC. This is to make clear from the start that what we are discussing is not the emergence, uncertain, even hypothetical as it is, of a Common Market regional policy, which is what the Government's amendment addresses itself to. We are talking about something much more immediate, more certain and more depressing, and that is the control of our own regional policy by the EEC.
Our motion deals with the Community rules which will affect the prosperity and the jobs of a very large area of Britain. It affects the development and special development areas in Scotland, Wales, the North, Merseyside and the far South-West and also the intermediate areas which embrace a larger part of Yorkshire, Lancashire, the Erewash Valley and other smaller areas in South Wales, in Scotland and in Devon. It is a matter of the utmost importance to millions of

our fellow countrymen and to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The problem arises because under Article 154 of the Treaty of Accession the Government have accepted that the Commission's rules on regional policy as formulated and agreed between the Six on 23rd June 1971
shall apply to the new Member States on 1st July 1973 at the latest".
In other words, in five days' time, on 1st July, the British Government will cease to be self-determining in regional policy and can conduct only such regional policies as the Commission in Brussels is prepared to allow. We are faced not only with an imminent and practical decision of the utmost importance, but with yet another deplorable example of the folly of those who allowed the transfer of democratic decision-making which the Treaty entailed. No wonder Ministers concerned have said and wished to say so little about what these new Brussels restraints involve. No wonder that, despite insistent and tenacious questioning from the Opposition it has been left to Her Majesty's Opposition to provide in their own Supply time an opportunity to debate this matter only a few days before the new Community rules apply here in have tabled an amendment which they know is not relevant to the subject under debate.
Let no one think that the Opposition are unwilling to debate the Community's regional policy, with which the Government's amendment deals. We are eager to do so. But the Government know, as we know, that we shall be able to do this much better and before very long—certainly long before the recess—and in the light of the proposals, as distinct from the broad principles, which Mr. Thomson, the responsible Commissioner, is shortly to present to the Council of Ministers. We shall have the full text and draft of those proposals within a fortnight. That te—and we shall have it—will probably turn out to be one of great embarrassment for the Government—one as embarrassing as any that their supporters have had to endure.
The myth of a strong Community regional policy assisted by Community


funds and operating to the clear benefit of the United Kingdom, helping to offset the burdens upon us of the CAP, as Mr. Thomson knows, will then and quite soon be exploded. We all read about last week's conference on this subject, and we know the views of Mr. Jerome Monod, the French regional planner, that the regional development fund should be, in his words, "relatively modest in size". We all know that as a new Community policy the common regional policy will require the unanimous consent of all the member States. If anyone imagines that we shall get a large and helpful regional policy financed in a way which will be helpful to Britain, he is in for a severe disappointment, and very soon.
We shall have time—and that I promise the Government because we have some Supply days—to return to these matters of the common regional policy. We shall have time to discuss them fully, and we shall do so. But for the Government to try to switch this debate to this quite separate matter is a transparent manoeuvre.
Let me turn to the matter that we seek to debate, the matter which is now so pressing and so important. It is the matter of the decision to be taken by the Commission by the end of this month, a matter affecting the whole future of Britain's own regional policy.
The Community's rules will affect our regional policy in three separate ways. First, they will decide which parts of the United Kingdom in future are to be called "peripheral" areas or so-called "central" areas. Our present system of special development areas, development areas and intermediate areas will be made to fit into this new European classification.
Secondly, in the central areas as defined by the Community new maxima as to the quantity of aid to be received by industry will be imposed. A 20 per cent. ceiling is to be laid down and we shall have to desist, unless we obtain a specific Commission waiv from making payments in excess at limit.
Thirdly, the type of aid will have to be changed so that what the Community calls "opaque" forms of aid—those which are not directly measurable or assessable—are phased out and disallowed.
The Commission's policy will affect our regions in these three ways. But by how much and which regions we have yet to know. We have not had the benefit of a single statement on this matter by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The questions that we have put to him again and again have been stonewalled or blocked.
When the right hon. Gentleman made his last post-EEC Council meeting statement on 23rd May I pressed him specifically on this point. He replied:
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the recent outcome of the discussions by the Commission would penalise the whole arrangements we have for helping our assisted areas. I can reassure him. It seems exceedingly unlikely. As I have said in the statement, it is our determined intention to see that we are not put in a position when we are obliged to reduce the incentives we currently make available for the regions.
I was not satisfied then and I pressed him further about what would happen if the Commission's policies clashed with those of Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman refused to be drawn and contented himself with this sibylline utterance:
I have resisted hitherto, and propose to go on resisting, outlining what course of action might be necessary if there were to be the hypothetical dispute to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. I can only say that I do not believe that we are without recourse, but beyond that I will not go."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1973; Vol. 857, c. 477–89.]
That is the most recent statement—indeed the only statement of any protracted length—that we have had from the Minister responsible on this important matter about which a decision is to be made affecting half the area geographically of the country and nearly one-third of its population within a very few days —[Interruption.] If the Minister for Industrial Development thinks that that is a matter on which the Government are to be congratulated, I can only say that he has little understanding of what is wanted in the House and in the country on regional policy.
The time for evasion and for the short statement is now over. We must now know how Article 154 of the Treaty of Accession is to be applied in the United Kingdom regions. So I ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster direct: will any or all of the intermediate areas of the United Kingdom be brought within


the Community's definition of central areas and thus made subject to the 20 per cent. ceiling on regional aid laid down for those central areas? Are any of the development areas of Britain to be brought within the Community's classification of central areas? Specifically, can the right hon. Gentleman deny reports that significant parts of Cornwall and Devon in our present South-West Development Area are in future to be deemed central areas? Will the right hon. Gentleman also deny that neither the Northern Region nor the Merseyside Region are brought, in whole or in part, within the central area classification of the EEC?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also tell us which, if any, of our types of aid have been ruled as opaque or insufficiently transparent and thus requiring to be changed? Will he assure us that the regional employment premium is not to be disallowed and that the free depreciation and initial allowances now available to British industry on what is a generous scale are not to be ruled out on the same score?
Those are serious questions. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman's answers will be, although I hope devoutly that he will be able to give the assurances that the House and the country require. We shall not be content on this occasion, so near to the moment of decision, with generalities.
It will not do for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us, as he told the conference arranged by the Glasgow Herald in Brussels last Tuesday, that present levels of assistance in the United Kingdom should be maintained and that this requirement could be met even if Britain's present development areas were classified as central. That will not do. Quite apart from the question of depreciation and initial allowances and how they are considered in terms of counting towards the 20 per cent. ceiling, it will not do for the additional reason that in the Government's own Industry Act provision is made for the percentage of aid permitted for the assisted areas of Britain, which includes 20 per cent. on all equipment and on all buildings throughout the intermediate areas and development areas and 22 per cent. for the special development areas.
In addition, in Section 8 of the same Act, we have special aids with a monetary total of £250 million to spend, in the first instance, covering a whole range of additional forms of assistance other than direct grants for buildings and new equipment. This applies to the intermediate areas, and it is well in excess of the 20 per cent. limit which would be imposed upon us if our intermediate areas, let alone any development areas, were brought within the definition of a central area.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Has my right hon. Friend noted the further point that the rulings of the Commission, if they go ahead as we expect, will rule out the uprating of intermediate areas to development area level if they are in the central area and that the North-West, of which the Chancellor of the Duchy should have special knowledge, has persistently and over a long period under the present Government had a higher male unemployment rate than the Welsh development area?

Mr. Shore: I fully understand my hon. Friend's point. In a sense, this is the heart of the whole matter. He and I and others may argue about which of the various regions and sub-regions of Britain over particular periods are most in need of aid. We could argue amongst ourselves which should have priority at a particular time. But all that debate is over after this decision. It will not be a decision for the British Government; it will be a decision to be taken after consultation and ultimately on the authority of the Commission in Brussels. So we are entering an entirely new era of regional policy.
I told the right hon. Gentleman that we should not be satisfied with general replies or statements of the kind that he has given before. It will not do for him to tell the House that the Commission—again, I refer to his recent speech—is rethinking its present classifications of peripheral and central areas and that it might in time, but not before we have been forced to make changes in Britain, be persuaded to add a third category. Nor will we take it from him that the Commission's restraints are good for us because they stop competitive bidding for the favours of multi-national companies. We have heard that too


often, as though the only matter about which we were concerned in the creation of jobs and the movements of firms was vast international companies. On the contrary, we are greatly concerned with the movements of firms within this country as well.
First, we shall not be satisfied because, as we all know, the present 20 per cent. ceiling in the central areas is only the first step towards a tight control over the regional policies of member States. The Commission has clearly stated its intention to lower such ceilings in future: the 20 per cent. will come down. Secondly, we shall not be satisfied because the next step after disciplining the central areas is to bring the peripheral areas under Community regional control.
Thirdly, we shall not be satisfied because we believe that the dominant force at work in deciding State aids for the regions is not the puny infant of a Community regional policy that Mr. George Thomson is now nursing, but the fully grown and adult competition policy of M. Borschette, and behind him lies not only 14 years of free market policies in the EEC, but the precise provisions of the Treaty of Rome dealing with the subject of State aids. In other words, this whole matter, the subject of our motion, is not even within the area of Community regional policy; it is part of Community competition policy for which M. Borschette is responsible, and his views on these matters inevitably prevail. [An HON. MEMBER: "They do not."] They certainly prevail on the matter of State aid. If my hon. Friend, who takes a different view on the whole question, is thinking in terms of future Community regional policy, well and good. That, indeed, comes under the competence of Mr. Thomson. But do not let us confuse the matter. The Government have an interest in confusing it.

Mr. John Brewis: Would it not be right to round off the right hon. Gentleman's review by mentioning the social policy which has put forward proposals for employment premiums in rundown areas?

Mr. Shore: I am willing to discuss the common social policy so far as it has emerged in discussing the common

regional policy. I hope that long before the House recesses, when these matters have advanced to a stage beyond general principles and reached some clarity in their policy profiles, there will be time to debate that matter and that it will be soon.
What matters to us, above all, is that unless the House can intervene from 1st July—I take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Arwick (Mr. Kaufman)—the British Government will have abandoned the power to decide regional policy in the United Kingdom and transferred it to agencies outside this country and not responsible to this Parliament and to the people of this land. The reins of this control may now be very slack, but the bit will be in our mouths; and it will be for others, not the British Parliament, to decide which way and how hard the bit will be pulled in the years ahead.
I can understand those who say that in some matters—defence and the environment are examples—some pooling of sovereignty is necessary in the modern world. But what I cannot understand is how anyone in this House could bring himself to accept that in a matter so sensitive to his constituents, to their hopes of employment and prosperity, the British Parliament and Government should give up the power to make decisions in future and accept the proposition that the gentlemen in Brussels know best.
Let us be clear that on this matter of deciding what State regional aids are to be permitted, it is not even the Council of Ministers that has the power of decision, but the Commission itself under Articles 92 to 94 of the Treaty of Rome.
I hope that the House will turn down this deliberately irrelevant Government amendment.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: Would my right hon. Friend clarify a statement? He came close to saying that we should vote against the principle of surrendering our sovereignty in the matter of regional planning. Did he go as far as that?

Mr. Shore: Yes, I did, and I shall do so again rather more strongly. I hope that hon. Members will assert themselves today in support of our motion, in support of their constituents, and in support of the continuing authority of the House


of Commons. Whatever happens today in the Lobbies, let there be no doubt in the country or in Europe that the next Labour Government will take back those powers over regional policy which the Treaty of Accession and the present Government have so wantonly transferred.

4.18 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Davies): I beg to move as an amendment, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof
acknowledges the declared intention of the European Communities to ensure the harmonious development of the economies of Member States by reducing the differences existing between the various regions, welcomes the progress made by the EEC Commission towards a Regional Development Fund, and recognises that this House will wish to debate these issues.
The Opposition motion introduced by the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), not untypically, seeks to imply that the Community is wholly indifferent to our type of regional problems. It seeks to imply thereby that the Community will restrain us from giving nationally the kind of assistance that we deem necessary, will not develop any arrangements to help us from Community resources, and will reach conclusions on both these steps without taking into account the wishes of Parliament and the Government. In those terms, the motion is wrong on every count.
Therefore, my right hon. Friends and I have put down an amendment which seeks to put the facts as they really are—first, that, from the inception of the Community, and, indeed, embedded in the Treaty of Rome, there has been a firm provision showing the concern that the original Community countries have had to eliminate regional disparities, and, second, to provide to the new Community countries realisation of the fact that our regional problems are not the same as those of the original Six and that they therefore require new initiatives to deal with them.
Our amendment therefore implies, correctly, that, both at the Summit meeting of Heads of Government and Heads of rently topical one and I propose to deal with it, as I propose also, however to deal with the whole issue of the Regional Development Fund.
Third, our amendment seeks to underline the fact that Parliament has had and continues to have the fullest access to every move in this debate, that it profoundly influences the Ministers concerned and that the method of work of the Community itself ensures our ability to contribute to the formulation of policies and prevents conclusions from being reached which are against our major national interests.

Mr. Neil Marten: In that case, can my right hon. Friend now add to our amendment the words, from the Opposition motion, "and approve the policy"? This is the essence of the matter, certainly from my point of view —that Parliament must approve this most important proposition. Will he say that Parliament should approve it?

Mr. Davies: I will deal with the specific matter that my hon. Friend mentions in the course of my speech. On the first point that I have mentioned—the concern shown in the Community for regional policies generally—I can do no better than to quote from the Preamble to the Treaty of Rome, which said that the partners stated their anxieties:
…to strengthen the unity of their economies and to ensure their harmonious development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of the less favoured regions ….
That in its turn was supplemented in the Summit conclusions of last October:
The Heads of State or of Government agreed that a high priority should be given to the aim of correcting in the Community, the structural and regional imbalances …".
These are clear evidences which cannot be overturned by mere generalised statements of the kind used by the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) of the Community's concern and its preparedness to deal with the problems involved.
Second, referring to what I said about the Community's knowledge of our own particular problem, I should like to turn in some detail to the two facets of regional policies as they arise at present. There was certainly no intention within the amendment to evade the question of Article 154. On the contrary, I think that the so-called Article 154 aspect is a cur-State and within the Commission since the enlargement of the Community on 1st January, there have been these initiatives to try to deal with our problem.
The background to Article 154 of the Treaty of Accession is that, in 1971, with the agreement of the six then member States, the Commission decided certain principles governing the co-ordination of regional aids throughout the then Community. Both parties also agreed on certain methods by which those principles would be applied. It is the application of those principles which involved the definition for the old member countries, the former Six, of "central" areas in which the limit of 20 per cent. net susidy equivalent was applied to regional assistance for individual projects.
I would underline the fact that the 20 per cent. is by no means an ungenerous limit. Could I put it in context? Currently, within our intermediate areas, for instance, our standard aids, measured according to the Community's form of computation, would be the equivalent of approximately 4 per cent. in the same terms. So let us not imagine that the 20 per cent., which is the restraining maximum, is a tight one that will severely inhibit us in any respect.

Mr. Shore: Could the right hon. Gentleman elucidate a little more on how 20 per cent. becomes 4 per cent. through the mathematics that take place?

Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman's command of mathematics is perhaps less than his command of invective. The 4 per cent. to which I referred is the effective level of aid which we apply by standard methods in the intermediate areas, measured in accordance with the Community's terms, and it compares with the 20 per cent. limit. When the right hon. Gentleman seeks to steam up the whole issue of what this restraint means, he entirely fails to realise what the true effect is.
It is worth stressing that neither the actual territorial division agreed by the Six nor the initial division into only two types of area within the meaning of the 1971 agreement is a "principle" of co-ordination. They are simply the methods chosen to apply the principles agreed to the Six. The same consideration also applies to the 20 per cent. limit itself. It is not an inherent principle of these arrangements but a method agreed between the parties for the implementation of the principles.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend then saying—this is very important and will be reassuring to the intermediate areas—that, if those areas were classified as central, there would be no need to alter the existing aids that they receive?

Mr. Davies: I would say that that is certainly the broad inference of what I say precisely. In the answer that I gave the right hon. Gentleman the other day, to which he referred, I clearly said that the Government's intent was to ensure that we were not obliged, through any of these arrangements, to reduce the level of aids that we are currently giving to our assisted areas.
I should now like to draw attention to the terms of Article 154 of the Treaty of Accession. This provides that the principles to which I have referred, adopted by the Six in 1971, should apply to the new member States at the latest by 1st July next. For Article 154 to be carried into effect, two things have to happen. The Commission has to supplement its original communication in a manner which both takes account of the fact that the Community of Nine is a different animal from that of the Six, with a different range and intensity of regional problems, and gives a result which puts all the member States in the same situation in respect both of the principles and of the methods of application of those principles.
So the effect of the action to be taken by 1st July is not simply to deal with the three new members, entirely exterior to the situation of the existing Six, but to reach a conformity in the Nine in relation to those principles. The member States must supplement their original resolution in a similar manner, because this was a twofold operation—the Commission and the member States working together—and it must again be the same.
The significance of the supplementation of the Commission's communication by a resolution by representatives of the member States was that it represented the conclusion of an understanding between them. The Commission formally stated its policy on the application of State aids in regional policy and the resolution in effect embodies the concurrence in that policy of other member States.
The right hon. Gentleman asks, what if that concurrence were not forthcoming in response to a supplementation by the Commission in respect of its 1971 principles? He was asking what happens if we do not find ourselves able to agree. If I felt that such an outcome were likely, I should have very seriously to contemplate —indeed, it is naturally part of one's reserve thinking to have done so—what steps are available. But the matter does not need to be considered. I do not consider there to be the least likelihood that there would not be the concurrence to which I have referred.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: To what extent does the right hon. Gentleman expect the House to be assured on the matters to which he is now referring? I am a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. The Common Market's headquarters will not allow a Select Committee of the House of Commons to go there to discuss formally matters of major importance to the House. Secondly, it will not allow the normal rules of procedure to apply in taking evidence. Thirdly, it will allow us to go there only if we give an undertaking that we shall not even take a shorthand writer with us.

Mr. Davies: I can only sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's problems, but they have nothing to do with the question of regional policy in the Community. I entirely appreciate the problems, but it would be difficult to assert that the Commission has not been extremely willing to accept Select Committees. This is not germane to this question.
I consider it highly unlikely that there would be a case of failure to concur between the member States and the Commission in this matter. Secondly, if there were a disagreement between the member States and the Commission, broadly speaking we should have all the very many recourses which have been discussed very frequently in the House. But I do not think it practical or useful today to consider them, because the situation simply does not arise. The House will realise, therefore, that the effect of the rather complex system of the supplementation and concurrence, to which I have referred, is to ensure that we have a very full voice ourselves in

the settlement of the situation arising out of Article 154.
The right hon. Gentleman then asked about Articles 92, 93 and 94 of the Community Treaty which deal with the question of the rules of competition. The right hon. Gentleman is right. These articles provide mechanisms whereby the Commission may seek to impose its views on a member State without the agreement of that State. But the fact is that the Commission does not do so. It invariably consults the member States concerned, and in reaching its conclusions takes account of their fundamental interests. The issue is entirely without base. The fact is that the Commission does not do so.
As far as regional aids were concerned, it was not until 1971 that, in the process of consultation, the Commission was even able to reach a frame of reference in relation to the restraint to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. Now it has to be decided what the extension will be in the enlarged Community.
The Summit decision should coordinate regional policies throughout the Community and the Commission's own report on regional policy in the enlarged Community points to the need to work for a more sophisticated and effective system than the tentative first steps embodied in the 1971 documents. This is work which Her Majesty's Government fully support, for the very reason that the right hon. Gentleman stated. It does restrain excessive bidding up for mobile projects, and they are not only mobile projects emanating from international combines but mobile projects emanating from a very wide range of sources throughout the Community and elsewhere. On the other hand, let there be no belief that this is simply a device of one kind or another to try to stop international combines from enjoying some benefit that we would contribute. It is inherent in the whole question of industrial development in the Community.

Mr. Shore: The right hon. Gentleman has made the point that no great conflict has emerged between the Commission and the Government in discussing with them the future of British regional policy. As it is only fair that he should answer this question, there being only three days


before the whole matter is to be announced and decided, surely he can tell the House whether or not any of the existing intermediate or development areas of this country are to be changed in the kind of aid that they receive, and which of them will be classified as peripheral areas and which as central areas?

Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman's quite understandable interest in this matter will be very shortly satisfied. This matter has been and is the subject of discussion, and I certainly do not propose to breach those discussions at present. The fact is that the arrangements of a more sophisticated kind, to which I have referred, seem to us to be very much of interest to us as a country. I hope that it will prove possible to bring this more sophisticated system to fruition during the course of next year, at the time when we have the result of the work which is being carried out by Mr. George Thomson in relation to the Regional Development Fund. This is germane.
In the interim what we need is some arrangement which will carry the Community over the intervening period without disruption and without prejudice to the future.
In the talks in Brussels and elsewhere in recent months we have made it plain that we could not agree to arrangements which involve the enforced cutting-back of aids and the coverage of aids which we at present make available to our regions. We have made it plain that it would, in our view, be wrong to prejudge the outcome of a proper and deep-seated review of regional aids in the Community which cannot, inevitably, take place for some time yet. The first formal step is, of course, for the Commission to take and it is possible that the Commission will very soon come to a collective view. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be under the mistaken impression that individual Commissioners could, independently of their colleagues, take decisions which had nothing in common with the normal consultative processes of the Commission. He is wrong. There is a normal process which operates within the Commission.
Assuming that that view meets our basic requirements as I have outlined

them—and which I confidently believe to be so and which I believe to be views shared by both sides of the House as to the desirable outcome—there will be no difficulty about the acceptability of the conclusion. There would certainly be nothing in the arrangements of this kind which cuts across decisions taken by this House in the past, either.
In the immediate the two issues—that is, the Article 154 issues and the Regional Development Fund issues—are separate, so that no identification of areas as central areas carries any implication of availability or non-availability of aid from the Regional Development Fund. Approach to the latter has been, on this side, independent of this activity, on lines which are entirely consonant with our own views on regional policy. The Commission paper, to which reference has been made, carefully analysed the facts of regional imbalance in the Community. It has reached a conclusion which identifies, as we would have done to a large degree, structural unemployment, low regional income per head and outward migration—

Mr. Edward Milne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can anything be done to protect the House from a Minister of the Crown reporting on an important matter of this kind by not referring to either the amendment or the motion before the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Davies: Clearly the hon. Gentleman has not been listening. I am sorry about that.
The Commission paper, which has been the work of the section of the Commission under Mr. Thomson, has identified structural unemployment, low regional income per head and outward migration as being the prime indicators of regional deficiencies. Indeed, this broad analysis would compare with our own, and has been discussed within the Council of Ministers and has enjoyed the broad support of the Council.

Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman should let me get on with my speech,


because time is slipping away. The reasons for Community support are seen not in terms of simply the remedying of regional deterioration which might or might not be created by industrial factors but as a Community interest to overcome imbalance in order to attain the maximum use of the resources in the interests of the Community itself—human resources and natural resources, and investment resources, clearly.
The next step is to be concerned with criteria for the selection of areas and projects which would enjoy support from the Regional Development Fund. The method of support would be either direct from the Community or indirect through the national efforts of national regional policies. There is a need, obviously, for an early definition of the size of the effort through the RDF to be considered.
It is probable that when that next phase is agreed, as it will be in the course of the year, the criteria to which I have been referring for regional selection will also serve as the basis for the restraint mechanisms to which I have been addressing myself under Article 154. At that point the two will tend to converge. It is also envisaged to have a Community committee which is permanently concerned with keeping both sides of the policy under consideration.
As to the last point which is implied in the Motion—that Parliament or government is being disregarded—the Opposition's contention is utterly unrealistic and springs from an inadequate understanding reinforced by the Opposition's deliberate non-involvement in the problem.
The fact is that with regard to executive decisions made in the European context Parliament has just as much influence as it does on Her Majesty's Government in relation to domestic policies. [Laughter.] Is the House really saying that it believes that it has no effect on policies—in which case what is the right hon. Gentleman raising so much trouble about? Surely what I say is correct, that the House has as much access to put pressure and emphasis on Ministers in these matters as it does in domestic affairs.
The right hon. Gentleman will know, because he is a member of the Select Committee, that a Select Committee has

itself come up with interim proposals which have to a large degree been accepted by the Government. The fact that we have not yet got a final report is due largely, as the right hon. Gentleman must know, to the late arrival into that committee of the Labour Party. I can only welcome the early arrival of a final report in that matter and the acceptance of any reasonable proposals which can be made.
I think that on all scores the Motion is entirely out of tune with the realities of the case. I consider that on the whole we have to look forward to benefit, not damage, from the Community in relation to our regional efforts. I am convinced that that is so. I ask the House to support the Government amendment and to reject the Motion.

Mr. Marten: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for raising a point of order in this short debate. Before you arrived in the Chair, I intervened to ask my right hon. Friend why the Government amendment could not also include the words "and approved the policy". My right hon. Friend has not answered that question. I should be grateful if you would allow him time, in case he forgot to answer it, to answer it right now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman knows very well, that is not a point of order.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I regret that the shortness of the debate prevents the Minister from expanding a little on his statement that Parliament has as much effect on Brussels as it does on the Government at Westminster. As the House realises, that statement is open to several constructions.
No one who has been to Brussels or studied the documents can doubt that the European Economic Community is deeply concerned about regional policies. On 3rd May this year the Community produced a large report which, as the Secretary of State pointed out, quotes the communiqué of the Heads of State saying that high priority should be given to these matters.
I shall address myself to the principles and methods by which the Community


intends to carry out its regional policy. I am not wholly satisfied with the results of our own regional policy. It has had successes, but I do not think that it is by any means a complete success. I am not sure what the Secretary of State meant when he said that the Community's policy would be more sophisticated. I believe that certain changes are needed in the whole approach to regional policies, but I do not think that sophistication is what is necessary.
We have now had considerable experience of trying to improve conditions in certain areas, whether those areas be under-developed areas at home, or underdeveloped countries abroad. This experience has gone on for some time. A most interesting book has just been published about the efforts made to develop the Highlands after the Forty-Five. Those efforts were similar to the efforts being made today. Apparently, they were successful in some ways and in many ways not successful. And they failed partly because they did not take into account the way of life of the Highlands. The failure of regional policy has sometimes been due to the failure to define our aims. The aims of the Common Market regional policy are to right the imbalance between the regions and, in the words of the amendment, to reduce
the differences existing between the various regions".
These imbalances or differences are chiefly the differences—

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in debating the amendment we are not talking about regional policies? Does he intend to say whether he accepts that we should debate proposals and approve them?

Mr. Grimond: The amendment is about regional policies. It has been moved. Therefore, it is in order and I intend to make a speech about it.
The imbalances are largely the difference between income per head in Hamburg, at one end of the scale, at 4,700 dollars on the average and in Calabria, on the other, at 756 dollars per head. They are to some extent about unemployment.
The aim to close this difference is an important aim, but it is only one of the aims that should be in the forefront of regional policy. One feature that these figures do not take into account is the differences of life in these places. They are founded on statistics which are open to grave suspicion. For instance, our own statistics are founded on leaving out women's work entirely and counting in such things as the production of drugs: thalidomide comes into our statistics, but not women's work. As for unemployment statistics, those for my constituency are even more suspect. Further, there is the element of depopulation, which is important.
Finally and most important, one of the aims of regional policy should be to foster the distinctive character of the regions and give them more control over their own affairs and enable them to retain their cleverest and most enterprising people instead of losing them to all the conurbations and also to enable the different regions of Europe to make their contribution to the whole. Therefore, it is not sufficient to establish work of any sort on some central policy, work which may have no roots in the region concerned, which may be given entirely through branch factories which may be liable to be closed if there is anything in the nature of a slump.
Secondly, the failure of regional policy is frequently a failure to decentralise decision making. This is relevant to our entry into the Common Market. Population and wealth follow on decisions and where they are made. For instance, if the capital of Great Britain were transferred to Sunderland or Inverness, there would be an enormous access of wealth and employment in those areas. So long as decision making, whether governmental, economic, or social, is concentrated in certain great conurbations, the other areas will suffer, because they will lose their best people and much of their wealth.
Thirdly, we must deliberately try to improve the environment in the regions which we wish to promote through investment, investment for physical and social and economic purposes. This is exactly what we are not doing. We shall have an enormous investment in Maplin and in the Channel Tunnel—these projects are going to the South-East of England,


not to the development areas—and great investment in the House of Commons. We have already spent more than £1,000 million on Concorde. Of what benefit is that to any regional policy? Absolutely none.
I know that these are British policies, but I suspect that they will be continued in the Common Market. I am not satisfied with them and I see no reason to suppose that our entry into the Common Market will by itself reverse them. We are heavily subsidising London, particularly over transport. It is not true that we are subsidising only the outlying parts of the country.
The European regional policy should begin with the question of where the decisions are to be made. If everything is to be concentrated on Brussels and the Golden Triangle, the policy is doomed to fail from the start. All of history shows that. There is also a realisation in many regions that they do not want capital-intensive industries. They wish to retain their people and to have labour-intensive industries.
Are the Government pushing these considerations in Brussels? If so, can they say what they are telling the Community about the establishment of regional offices? How are they to administer the Community policies? Will it be entirely through Governments, through Brussels, or how else? I see the great danger of the Regional Development Fund being regarded as a quid pro quo for the CAP, and that is not what it is all about.
There are many questions still to be answered about what benefits we may expect from certain other aspects of the Community institutions. The Social Fund was mentioned, but we have not been told by the Government if it is available for regional development. There is also the European Investment Bank. How far is the European Coal and Steel Community interested in regional development? These are questions which we have the right to put to the Government and which the Government should put to Brussels.
We should get some sort of report back from Brussels about what the policies will be. There is the possibility that the status of certain areas, such as parts of the South-West of England, might be changed. That would be disastrous. There is also

the question whether we should be allowed to continue help to transport and retain the regional employment premium. These are legitimate matters to raise in a debate of this sort, even though we may not be debating the whole impact of regional policy. We must press the Government not simply to be allowed to maintain their existing policies, which are only partially successful and are open to criticism, but to go for a departure in regional development which will be based on some devolution of decision making and take into account the various potentialities of the different regions.
This is a good but highly bureaucratic report. It seems to assume that the Europeans are essentially all of one type: they are not. They are culturally, historically and economically entirely different. I press the Government not only to maintain our rights to continue with what is good in our policies, but to take fresh initiatives in Brussels so that we may have a more successful policy than we have had in the past.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. John Brewis: The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) touched on many uncertainties of European regional policy and I hope that I shall be able to mention some of them. We should welcome the statement by Mr. George Thomson, the Commissioner responsible for regional development. Until now any footloose international industry or national firm has been able to shop around to see in which European country the highest inducements can be obtained. On many occasions, countries were prepared to outbid each other to get a desirable project and if that is so it merely means that more inducements are being given than are necessary to persuade industry to establish itself in new locations.
When the new regional policy comes into force the more glaring inequalities between the various inducements offered will be ironed out and I am sure that in improving the conditions of the Highlands or Calabria a free-for-all on inducements is not necessary. For many years Britain has operated a disincentive policy in the congested areas by withholding industrial development certificates. It has been impossible, however, to enforce that policy too rigidly. Even during the years


of the Labour Government the major part of new factory building was in the non-development areas. If a multi-national company says that it will expand at Dagenham or go abroad, it is extremely difficult to argue with it and in the many years that we were out of the European Community we lost a great many jobs and much investment through our companies setting up abroad.

Mr. John Biffen: Does my hon. Friend therefore think that with subsequent United Kingdom membership of the Community the rate of investment by United Kingdom firms in the Community will diminish rather than increase?

Mr. Brewis: I have today received a paper on what is going on which shows that a German electronics firm is to set up in Scotland, so that the investment is obviously going both ways.
I wanted to discuss the proposal in the regional policy to tackle congestion. It has much to recommend it. So far, we have no details of how congestion in the big conurbations is proposed to be tackled. It might be by a tax, and that seems most probable. It will take the strain off the need for vast expenditure on infrastructure such as hospitals, housing and motorways in a great megalopolis like London. In time, a congestion disincentive policy would improve the environment as is happening in Glasgow now with the policy of overspill to attractive new towns.
Another advantage of a congestion tax is that it would cost the Exchequer nothing. Such a tax could have been counter-productive when Britain was not in the Community. But if it is at a harmonised rate and is levied in the 20 or so largest conurbations in the Community it might be a most invaluable weapon in regional policy. Such a tax could well help with the solution of the problem of the intermediate areas. I would envisage that the IDC system will continue and will be quite acceptable to the European Commission. But if we try to include all the assisted areas in Britain in the European regional policy, we shall be seeking to cover 65 per cent. of the land surface of the British Isles and 55 per cent. of the people.
There are even deeper disparities of income on the Continent. In my part of South-West Scotland in 1972 the unemployment rate was 5·8 per cent. That was the fourth highest in Britain after Northern Ireland, the Highlands and North-West Wales. But in Belgium, there were seven regions worse off and in Italy more than 40. If 3·5 per cent. were to be regarded as the threshold for help in the European regional policy a large part of the land area could be covered and there would be a danger of spreading the jam much too thinly. Our experience has been that regional policy is more effective if it is concentrated on growth points. I am concerned not so much for the intermediate areas which would be helped by the proposals for discouraging congestion, but more for the special development areas, Northern Ireland and the Highlands. Their competitive edge must be maintained, though I agree with what the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said about the distinctive character of certain regions in Europe. Here again, we can be comforted that many areas in Europe have higher migration rates, not only in Italy but also in parts of France, Belgium and Denmark, to name just a few.
During the speech of the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) I referred to the European Social Fund. We must take it into account when we talk about regional policies and competition policies. The social policy is concerned with full and better employment. It inludes such items as grants for retraining, help for school-leavers to obtain their first job, and helping prematurely retired workers. In addition, there is a proposal to pay employment premiums, aimed at creating new jobs in undeveloped and declining regions. I hope that the Government will have in mind the many representations made by the regions about regional employment premium. It has been a valuable weapon, and its withdrawal might well mean the loss of many jobs. I hope that my right hon. Friend who replies will be able to tell me whether it can be tied up with the proposals in the social policy.
I think that the regional policy proposed by Mr. Thomson is a very promising start towards ironing out some of the disparities which have already been mentioned in the debate and improving


the quality of life in the new Europe we are creating.

5.1 p.m.

Mr. David Marquand: As this is a very brief debate, and as I promised Mr. Speaker when I told him that I wanted to take part that I would be as brief as possible, I hope that the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) will forgive me if I do not comment on what he said.
I agreed with a great deal of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) said in opening the debate. I hope that he does not think that that statement is a kiss of death, coming from me. But I strongly disagreed with one thing that he said. In reply to an intervention from one of my hon. Friends, he said that we were voting against any transfer of sovereignty from this House to Brussels. That is not what is in the motion, and it is not Labour Party policy. I have no intention of voting against any transfer of sovereignty of any kind from this House to Brussels. That should be stated quite clearly at this stage.
I thought that the Minister was unduly complacent in what he said about the distinction between central and peripheral areas. He is right that the level of grants available in so-called central areas would certainly make my constituency, which is in an intermediate area, very happy. But he was unduly complacent in accepting that ludicrously anachronistic, crude and artificial distinction in the first place. It is part of the Old Testament of the Commission. It is a distinction which is utterly unhelpful in trying to decide which are the problem regions where help is needed, and it should be abandoned as quickly as possible. The criteria suggested in Mr. Thomson's Green Paper are totally incompatible with the distinction between central and peripheral areas.
It is unfortunate that the Minister, speaking for Her Majesty's Government, did not give a clearer indication that the Government will press as rapidly as possible for the abandonment of the central-peripheral distinction and press instead for the adoption of the George Thomson distinction, which is much more helpful.
My right hon. Friend emphasised that we were talking about British regional

policies, not about Common Market regional policies, but I thought that both he and the Minister were unduly complacent about the success of regional British policies and about the success of national regional policies in any member State of the Community. The enlarged Community will rapidly face a major crisis unless it quickly adopts a much more stringent and effective Community policy than anything we have seen in the past to supplement the national policies, whose inadequacy has been proved by the experience of the past 15 or 20 years.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney shakes his head, but every member State of the EEC, ourselves included, has adopted regional policies over the past 15–20 years, and none of them can remotely pretend to have solved the problem of regional imbalance and inequality, certainly not this country. Italy has probably made the greatest progress, but although the gap between North and South has narrowed to some extent the South still has a long way to go before it reaches the point of self-sustaining economic growth.
The experience of the past 15–20 years has demonstrated that reliance on national policies alone is doomed to failure. We can grapple effectively with the stubborn problem of regional imbalance only if national policies are supplemented by supra-national policies at the Community level.
In the few minutes that I have I should like to concentrate on the nature of the pan-European strategy which I should like to see evolve. First, it is essential that the Community should now recognise openly and explicitly that the ideology set out in the Rome Treaty is not only irrelevant to the needs of the weaker regions but is positively detrimental to them. The fundamental assumption running through the Rome Treaty is that the road to prosperity lies through freer competition. Member States are allowed to temper the wind to the shorn lamb of regional weakness in various ways, and have done so, but the essential assumption is that the road to prosperity is freer competition.
That approach is fundamentally detrimental to the needs of the weaker regions. The Commission must therefore recognise explicitly and openly what


it has already tacitly recognised, that the ideology is no longer adequate.
Secondly, it is necessary to stress that if we are to solve the problem of regional imbalances in the enlarged Community it is useless to adopt a Gaullist approach. The problem can be tackled effectively only by achieving massive transfers of resources from the wealthier regions of Europe to the poorer regions. These transfers must take place across national frontiers as well as across regional frontiers. It is ludicrous to imagine that this can be done by a Community of nine separate States, each fighting jealously for what share of the cake it can get, and each refusing to give up any part of its national sovereignty. The weaker regions above all stand to benefit from greater integration and stronger Community institutions.

Mr. Edward Taylor: rose—

Mr. Marquand: I would rather not give way, because this is a very brief debate, and many other hon. Members wish to speak.
My next points concern the specific elements in the regional strategy that I should like to see developed. First, there is the question of the fund. Nobody in the debate has yet given a figure of what he thinks the fund should be. I believe that we should aim, not in the immediate future, but in the medium term, at a regional development fund of approximately 1 per cent. of the combined gross national products of all the member States of the enlarged Community.
That would come at present to approximately 7,000 million dollars a year. That is much larger than any figure which has yet been mentioned. I should like to see the Government aim at that figure.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Why?

Mr. Marquand: The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) mentioned—and he is absolutely right—that in most of the Common Market countries, apart from Great Britain and Italy, far too little emphasis has been placed on employment subsidies and too much emphasis has been placed on incentives to capital investment. The Community itself and not just the member States of the Com-

munity, should evolve something similar to a regional employment premium covering the whole of the enlarged Community. Experience of the recent past shows clearly that if we rely exclusively on capital incentives we shall spend more and more money to less and less effect.
An effective Community strategy will also necessitate giving a much larger role to public enterprise than any member State, ourselves included, has given it so far. Italy has used its public sector actively to develop the south of Italy, but no other member State of the enlarged Community has used the public sector as part of a co-ordinated strategy. Some time ago the Commission proposed setting up a holding company which would have the power to take minority holdings in firms operating in the more backward regions of the enlarged Community. I do not know what has happened to that proposal. It does not seem to figure in the latest Green Paper. That proposal should be resuscitated and pressed vigorously.
I agree with the hon. Member for Galloway when he said that we need to have a Community-wide congestion policy. In Britain the stick of the IDC has been an essential part of our regional policy. In France there have been the rather less effective controls over building in the Paris region. A congestion tax, as suggested in the Green Paper, should play a major part of in the Community's regional development policy.
We are facing a vast problem, which can be solved only over a long time, and only by international action. If national Governments continue to rely solely on their own small-scale policies, dealing only with the aspects of the problem of direct concern to them, all the poorer regions of Europe will suffer. We must work together to create a Europe from which all the citizens and not simply the favoured few in the golden triangle can benefit.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hicks: It is necessary to emphasise at the beginning of my remarks that I believe that to obtain the maximum return from any regional policy it is essential to have an expanding domestic economy. That must be stated because in the past we have tended to put far too much emphasis on the belief


that regional policies in themselves will alleviate many of the problems facing the regions. In fact, there must be a combination of the two approaches.
The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand) was right when he said that no country, and particularly our own, over the past decade has been successful in solving the problems facing the difficult regions. In the past we have tended to believe that by putting more money into regional policies we shall automatically succeed in the end. Of course, events have proved that unfortunately this is not the position.
We have at present an expanding economy. I hope that we shall be able to sustain the present rate of economic growth because that will give the nation, and the regions themselves, the opportunity to alleviate some of the real problems with which they are faced.
As I have said, regional aids do not in themselves basically create growth and wealth. They are primarily instruments for influencing the distribution of our centres of economic and social activity. We now have as good an opportunity of ameliorating regional disparities as we have had at any sime since the early 1930s when Governments first accepted the obligation to involve themselves with the problems of the regions. We have a good opportunity because we have the combination of an expanding economy backed by a detailed yet flexible fabric of regional aids which are the consequence of the Industry Act 1972.
Against that favourable background it is vital that there should be no weakening of resolve and, what is more, no lessening of the quantity or quality of regional assistance. In the context of regional policies there are two aspects which have confronted us this afternoon. The first is concerned with the evolution of a Community regional policy. The second concerns our own national regional policy and in particular the designation of peripheral and central areas. It is on the latter aspect that I shall concern my remarks.
Concern about national regional policy arises from the implementation of Article 154 of the Treaty of Accession. Immediate attention is focused on that because we must make a decision by 1st July 1973. I have a constituency interest because 75 per cent. of the Bodmin division is

located within the South-West development area. The remainder falls within the Plymouth intermediate area. At present within the South-West development area unemployment is below the national average. Thus, there is a danger that it might appear that the area is not in need of selective assistance. I must remind right hon. and hon. Members that less than 18 months ago I made a speech in which I drew attention to the fact that unemployment in the South-West development area was the second highest of all the United Kingdom development areas.
At present average incomes in the area, according to Inland Revenue statistics, are still the second lowest of all the United Kingdom development areas. Although we have now satisfied the job quantity problem there is still a real need to improve job quality opportunities. That is why it is essential that there is no reduction in the level of incentives to attract the type of suitable economic activity which the South-West urgently requires.
I shall digress for one moment. Other Government activities, such as using the technique of the Hardman Report to alleviate our job quality problems, may well help.
The House will appreciate that the problems facing the South-West differ somewhat from those facing other development areas.
We are not an old industrial region requiring rejuvenating in both economic and social terms. We are largely a rural area, dependent on agriculture, horticulture, inland fishing and tourism, with only scattered light industry. But because we do not have the number of people involved or the scale of industrial development or the scale of industrial decline prevalent in other development areas this does not mean that our problems are any less than those of, say, Scotland or Wales.
I welcome the assurance given by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Minister for Industrial Development that there will no reduction in the level of aid to the assisted areas. As I understand it, the level of aid given by the Exchequer to our development and intermediate areas does not exceed the 20 per cent. ceiling figure which differentiates a peripheral region from a central area.


What worries me, however, is what will be the situation at the end of the transitional period. I understand, having served on the Standing Committee which considered the Industry Act last session, that the various regional development aids we have made available for the assisted areas terminate on 1st January 1978. I should welcome clarification on this point.
In addition, what will be the position if the Community, or the Commission in particular, wishes to reduce the figure of 20 per cent. to a level lower than that which our own development areas are currently in receipt of, particularly if what is now a British development area is not granted peripheral region status as a result of the decision which must be made within the next week? I ask this question since there have been Press reports in the last month or so that the South-West development area is in the most vulnerable situation of all United Kingdom development areas. These are the worries which I have not only in my capacity as Member for Bodmin but also as one very concerned that there should be no loss in the economic momentum which the South-West development area is gaining.

Mr. Marten: I understand my hon. Friend's worries and he has a great reputation for always speaking up for his constituency and his area in this House. However, when all this is over and the issue is brought back to the House, and he is dissatisfied with it on behalf of his constituents, will he want to take a proper decision on it or just let it go by on the nod?

Mr. Hicks: I shall meet the problem when I have to face it.
I support the point made by the hon. Member for Ashfield that the two-class definition between peripheral and central areas is much too restrictive. Within the United Kingdom at the moment, we have four types of assisted area. France has five. I hope, therefore, that the Government will use their influence to grade the system of selective assistance to take into account the individual needs of particular areas and in doing so give greater flexibility to the system.
I believe that it is highly desirable that the South-West development area

should be classified as a peripheral region in order to maintain the momentum which has been generated in the last 12 months or so. We have made progress. but, on the other hand, if we are to put right the pockets of unemployment which still exist and particular problems such as lack of job quality opportunity, it is necessary that we sustain the present level of assistance and I hope that the Government have taken that message on board.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East): A year or so ago, Members of both parties, divided between themselves as they were, waded into a debate on regional policies within the European Economic Community—some with enthusiasm rather than information—and wondered what would be the consequences to the regions of our country of entering the EEC. A mass of statistics —and as a former statistician I am aware that statistics can be used to prove anything—were thrown about. I argued that those of us on the periphery of the EEC, in Britain's development areas, would have very grave problems subsequent to British entry.
I was never one of those who fought against the Common Market in principle. I spent a great deal of time studying the subject and I did not reach my conclusions about the regions, as some people did, on preconceived theories of being pro or anti-Common Market in the first place. More recently, at Whit-sun, I spent some time again in the periphery of the Community, with the good fortune also of having several hours privately in the company of George Thomson, an old and trusted friend, who is now responsible for the EEC's regional policies.
Of one thing I have been completely certain for many years, and still am. Our entry into the EEC does not in itself help to solve our regional problems but could—and I use the term carefully—make them considerably worse. The House need not take my word for it. I was scoffed at last year by some of my hon. Friends, but now I point out to them that shortly before Albert Borschette left the job of Regional Commissioner, he became a little more forthright about the lack of success of European regional policies than he had been


in earlier years. According to the European Communities Press Department, he stated towards the end of 1971:
Economic disparities between the E.E.C. regions are in many cases great and in some cases are increasing … left entirely to itself industrial centralisation may easily feed on itself. …Changes and improvements in the transport network are conferring new privileges on the areas near the growth points. New industries establish themselves for preference near the big centres of large scale consumption.
This is what I called at the time the centripetal pull.
At that time, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand) and some other of my hon. Friends, who are sitting together at the present time, were decrying strongly words used by me which were subsequently in effect used by Mr. Borschette and the words which my hon. Friend has himself been using today. There has been a change of tune and a realisation on the part of those who have begun to study the problem more closely that some of us were right a year ago, when we said that there was a great deal to worry about in EEC regional policy.
I am not attacking my hon. Friend. He was not even the main person who decried these warnings, but many of those who voted against the party whip at the time argued that we were talking rot, that all the things we had already done for the regions we could do in future, and that in any case the Europeans in the EEC had solved their own regional problems better than we had. Later, Mr. Borschette let the cat out of the bag. It had been seen by many hon. Members already but not by all!
People will not easily give up their national sovereignty whatever we do in this House. It is inevitable and we must be realistic.
European regional aid will be only a supplement to existing national aid or it could be some kind of deterrent to existing national aid. The size of European regional aid could be of crucial significance. Where it goes could be even more important. Figures have been bandied around. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) who is not here now, seemed to know what the figures are. Some speak of £50 million a year for the European regional aid fund, which is peanuts. George Thomson has

told me that he would like £500 million a year, which is barely sufficient.
We have to put our point, which is that we have put a great deal of money into the Community and will continue to do so through the common agricultural policy. We shall have to fight hard, not to obtain quid pro quo, but to get regional funds from the Community for this country. Mr. Monod has been spoken of already. He is the Director-General of France's Regional Development Committee. He is on record recently as saying that the European regional fund should be "modest". When he spoke, he seemed to be almost proud of the fact that the French—and they have great problems in the South-West and West—spend only £45 million a year on their regional programme compared with our £450 million a year. He seemed to think that this was something of which he ought to be proud, that he was saving his Government's money.
What he did not tell us, and he is a very astute young man, was that France has gained an enormous amount of European money through the common agricultural policy and that that amount is a form of regional aid going to the weaker parts of France. We ought to tell the French this in no uncertain terms in our negotiations. I hope that our Ministers will do so. The Chancellor of the Duchy has already said something about this recently in his speech in Scotland.
It is still true that Europe has not fully realised that the regional problems of the United Kingdom are essentially different from those of practically every other member of the Community.
Our regional aid has always been mainly directed towards the declining areas in the centres of the old industrial revolution, whereas European national regional aid has tended to go to the poorer agricultural regional areas. The rural population, particularly in France and Italy, forms a much larger proportion of the total electorate than it does here, to strike a cynical note. I have spent a lot of time in these parts of France and Italy. Regional aid in these areas is a matter of politics just as much as it is in this country. To date, the regional policies of the Community have been failures and in effect Mr. Borschette admitted this. If they have not all been failures, then they have been of negligible


importance. They have been restrictive so that the Commission has tried to impede out-bidding subsidies, to harmonise competition between member States, or they have been selective, trying to pin down aid into certain areas.
The pressures have always been basically political pressures exerted by politicians through Ministers upon the Commission. Those who know how the machine works know that this is true. I suspect that when we see what comes out after 1st July, we will see that the new Commissioner for Competition, Mr. Borschette, gets what Mr. Borschette wants. It is he who will determine what will be done, rather than George Thomson. This is true in terms of personalities and power politics within the Community and the European Economic Commission.
George Thomson told me, and has subsequently publicly announced, that there are three basic criteria for determining European regional aid. The first is the outward migration of population, the second is the current per capita income in the region, and the third is the current level of unemployment.
When the Chancellor of the Duchy mentioned this, some of his hon. Friends said that it was a jolly good basis. It is not. What worries me is that the old agricultural areas nearly always score more heavily for aid on that combination than do the declining industrial areas. To put it simply, although the North-East of England has terrible problems, it compares more favourably—in terms of its non-qualification for aid on these criteria —than does Mezzo-Giorno or the South-West of France or Eire. If we use that kind of yardstick it will be found that many parts of the United Kingdom, even development areas, at present receiving aid would not do so. They receive it now because of the long political traditions and the industrial history of this country, which many of our European friends do not understand.
When the Commission declares on 1st July what it would like the central areas to be within which national governments should give only up to 20 per cent. investment aid for new buildings, and when it defines the peripheral areas, I suspect that on these criteria it will in-

evitably be the South of Italy and the South-West of France and Eire, and just possibly Scotland and Wales which will gain. There is a threat to every development area and every "grey area" in England on the basis of these criteria.
I have been through these figures with economists who are far more competent to deal with them than I am. Everyone has seen the maps. George Thomson showed them to me. He went through the figures and said, "On those figures it is possibly just true perhaps that the North-East would not qualify. In the end it is power politics that decides these things." So it is.
My worry is that this Government have so little to lose politically in the old Victorian industrial revolution areas, that the political pressures may not be as powerful as I would like them to be—let alone the power of Britain to negotiate effectively within the Community. What worries me most of all is that these decisions will not be taken here, but in Brussels. In the long run that is the biggest tragedy of this debate.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Fell: I have promised you, Mr. Speaker, that I shall be brief because I have decided that I shall vote for the motion. Perhaps I may be allowed to explain why. If this debate has proved one thing beyond a peradventure it is that this House wants to debate the subject upon which every hon. Member has so far concentrated his remarks. It is interesting to note that Labour Members have spoken on the supposition that the motion will be lost. So they have tried to make their speeches knowing that they will not be able to make them later.
Conversely, most of my hon. Friends have spoken simply on the question of the development areas knowing jolly well that their weak wishy-washy amendment would succeed and that there would not therefore be an opportunity to discuss these matters before decisions are taken in Brussels.
I remember very well on previous occasions that many of my hon. and right hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton), Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), my right hon. and


learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) took a very strong view that we might lose some of the power of this House over decisions taken to guide the affairs of the nation and shape our future. This was called sovereignty. Everyone now sniffs at sovereignty and says that it does not matter if we lose a bit of it, that we lose a bit of our sovereignty in international affairs every time we make an agreement.
Suppose that my right hon. Friend forgot that the motion had been tabled by the Conservative Party's enemies on the other side of the House. Surely he could not have had much to grumble about. He may have had a hand in framing the amendment, although I cannot believe that he is so wishy-washy and inaccurate as to have had much of a hand in it. Let me read the motion to my right hon. Friend:
That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government not to accept any decision of the EEC Commission affecting the regional policies of the United Kingdom until this House has debated and approved it.
Has he very much against that? Is he so little a parliamentarian? I have the greatest admiration for my right hon. Friend, because, unlike some people, I thought that he became an important parliamentarian more quickly than it was possible to believe. I thought great things of him. Is it possible that he can disagree fundamentally with the motion?

Mr. Marten: May we have an answer now?

Mr. Fell: Does my right hon. Friend think that matters which affect all the regions of this country should not be debated by the House? Does he think that this miserable, three-hour charade of a debate is sufficient?
If my right hon. Friend thinks that the motion is too strong, why could not most of it stand, and why could not a sensible amendment be tabled, adding one or two matters which might have made it more acceptable to the Government? Why is it necessary to table an amendment which crosses out the whole of the Opposition's very good motion? It does not matter whose motion it is. I

should have thought that the Opposition's motion would be acceptable to the vast majority of hon. Members. Yet, what do my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government do? They cross out the whole motion and then propose the weakest amendment one has ever seen.

Mr. Marten: My hon. Friend is making the same point that I made. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster promised to answer it in his speech and he forgot to do so. I know that these things happen. I was a Minister and occasionally I forgot to deal with points. Would not this be a good moment for my right hon. Friend to intervene to answer my hon. Friend's point so that he might continue his speech?

Mr. Fell: Hon. Members know that if anyone wishes to intervene I give way. However, I hope that hon. Members will not interrupt me too much because otherwise I shall not fulfil my promise to Mr. Speaker. If my right hon. Friend would like, on the prompting of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), to answer the point, I should be delighted to give way.
The motion requests that the House should debate and approve matters which might affect the regions of this country. I still cannot think why the Government could not stomach it. Instead they have tabled an amendment which
acknowledges the declared intention of the European Communities to ensure the harmonious development of the economies of Member States by reducing the differences existing between the various regions. …
Marvellous. It is weak, but it is nice and pretty and everybody is happy. The amendment goes on to say that the House
welcomes the progress made by the EEC Commission towards a Regional Development Fund …".
My right hon. Friend told us some of the progress made. It was a bit unintelligible and would not mean much to specific areas, but it was all right as far as it went. If he is happy about the matter, as he said, why not accept the motion and have a debate on it? The situation is beyond craziness.
The amendment ends by recognising
that this House will wish to debate these issues".


It is surprising to me that the people responsible for the amendment did not put "some time" after
will wish to debate these issues".
That would have been as intelligible as this miserable, weak-kneed amendment.
I beg my hon. Friends to think twice before going into the Lobby against the motion, which advocates doing what every Member who has spoken has tried to do, namely, to debate these issues properly and not in a three-hour skimped and rushed affair.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Neil McBride: I support the proposition advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) and I share the view of the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) that it is important that the House should debate and approve any decision of the EEC Commission affecting the regional policies of the United Kingdom. The House still has some dominion over our affairs and I am grateful for the fact that Britain is not as yet, in all completeness, a province of Europe.
There is great concern in Wales over the nature of the EEC's regional policy and its effects on the Principality. That concern is heightened by the decisions which will be made by the EEC Commission on 1st July. Those decisions will be made as a result of an agreement which this country had to accept—and I accuse the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster of knowing that—and which was framed in 1971. It is because of the directive limiting aid to regions that we are debating this matter today.
Wales asks for peripheral status. It is literally on the periphery of the Common Market as presently constituted. The proposals drawn up by Mr. Borschette confirm the worst fears of those of us who oppose the Common Market and condemn the Ministers, including the Secretary of State for Wales, who declared that Wales would benefit substantially and that the Principality would be all right on the day. I have news for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster: it will not. The hoped-for financial assistance from the regional fund for Wales will be less than was expected and with the waygoing of the euphoric period of post-treaty accession joy now long

departed Wales is faced with the realities of the situation which we predicted. I accuse the Minister of being aware of that.
On 19th June Mr. Jerome Monod, France's leading expert on regional policy, said that the proposed EEC regional development fund should be relatively modest in size. That is a most interesting observation, coming from the representative of France, the senior member of the European Community.
It is equally interesting to note that there is a political battle going on because France and West Germany are not keen to make vast contributions to the proposed regional development fund. I was in Brussels on 15th and 16th of this month—that is where I got the information, right in the building. When I went to Brussels I was a confirmed anti-marketeer, deeply apprehensive. I returned confirmed in my opposition and with a serious sense of alarm. Mr. Monod declared that there was no point in establishing a regional development fund in the EEC if it is to be regarded as an account to compensate States which are receiving little from other funds as Mr. Monod said certain partners seemed desirous of doing. The right honourable Gentleman is engaged in a fierce scramble for money to offset our heavy contribution to the common agricultural policy. He is on the defensive, and Wales is apprehensive. That is a deliberate slap in the face for the United Kingdom Tory Government.
During my visit to Brussels nowhere did I find anyone willing to declare even tentatively how Wales would benefit from the proposed development fund. All inquiries were met with a blank wall of silence. I was there with six of my honourable Friends, and we are all entitled to be considered people of probity. We were astounded.
It is common knowledge that if the proposed regional fund is to be of any material assistance to nations such as Wales, the minimal aid given to the regions should be not £50 million but at least £150 million to £250 million, and if the aid is to be adequate it should be £500 million. Will France and Germany agree to that? Let the Minister say so. He cannot. According


to the present intentions of France and Germany — particularly France — adequate regional assistance cannot be contemplated.
On 1st July, according to Mr. Borschette's proposals, Wales will be classed as a central area and will receive only 20 per cent. of the cost of any given investment project.
Fierce infighting is going on between the six original members of the EEC to secure the best possible deal for themselves. Will they allow Wales to become more attractive to investors? The EEC Commissioners have pointed out that France and Italy have had reduced aid because of EEC regulations. Will Southern Belgium and Italy allow Wales to be accorded generous treatment when they wish to be considered as peripheral partners? In parts of Southern Italy there is neither work or hope. Now everything is coming home to roost. Despite the lack of information and reports, the possible effect on Wales of the development fund is abundantly clear. I regret that the Secretary of State for Wales is not here. I have the moral courage to tell him what I think. Time and again across the Floor of the House I have asked him to give Wales the facts. In 1971 I asked the right honourable and learned Gentleman to give Wales the facts and figures, but he either could not or would not—I suspect, would not. I therefore ask, in face of the proposals announced by Mr. Borschette, backed up by the French view as expressed by Mr. Monod, how will the EEC proposals deal more effectively with regional development in Wales?
My hon. Friend the Member for Ash-field (Mr. Marquand) spoke about capital subsidies. Will not the Government be compelled by the EEC to phase out the regional employment premium because it is not in conformity with the rules of the Common Market?
Will Wales appreciate the opportunities of sharing with EEC nations the present 2·5 per cent. unemployment rate in the Community? Will Wales appreciate sharing with the EEC nations the position of school leavers who are finding that the period between leaving school and securing work is becoming longer? It is all very well to paint a picture in roseate hues but the

grim, sombre undertones of reality come into it. The ghosts are walking.
The facts and figures relating to Wales have never been given to the House. I accuse the Secretary of State for Wales of dereliction of duty. He is the political shadow boxer supreme. There will be no grants from the regional development fund at least until the turn of the year. No consideration has been given by the EEC Commissioner—or perhaps by the Minister—to the massive redundancies that are threatened in the steel industry and the problem that they present to the Principality. The EEC is saying, "We do not wish to share this with you, we will not help and we do not want to know." We are frightened of this attitude and frightened of the Government.
Central regional status will not help to correct the state of imbalance in the Welsh economy. I challenge the Minister to controvert that. The ceiling of 25 per cent. for the national subsidy in central areas such as Wales is a ceiling that is also valid in central areas where Common Market aid is added to national aid. According to the rules of the Common Market, there will be no derogation from this principle.
Wales is getting the rough end of the Common Market stick in the regional policies outlined, and the aid proposed to be given is less than minimal. I seriously doubt the ability of the EEC to improve conditions in Wales, and I seriously doubt the ability of this incompetent Government to work to that end I support the motion.

5.58 p.m.

Sir Anthony Meyer: The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) talked even more nonsense than usual. He knows perfectly well that the European social fund is available to help redundant steel workers. What he said about the effect of the EEC on the British steel industry is utter nonsense from begining to end—as was everything else he said.
I do not want to lay down the law any further in this debate. I have come here primarily to listen and to ponder what is said. It is deplored on both sides of the House that the effect of British entry to the European Community could be to inhibit British regional policy up to date. Although there are times when I


believe that any kind of regional policy is a process of trying to push water uphill, I none the less believe, that an effort has to be made. Representing, as I do, a North Wales constituency, I am bound to be highly sceptical of the processes by which our present regional policy is formed.
All too often regional policy under successive Governments fluctuates and modulates in accordance with the amount of political pressure generated in this House by well-organised lobbies of Members pushing their own particular regional interests. I say this with some bitterness because we in North Wales are a weak and ineffectual lobby if only because we are not so numerous as others. Therefore, I would be the last to deplore a further internationalisation of regional policies.

Mr. Biffen: Would my hon. Friend reflect on what he said? Does he recollect that when he was quite properly and understandably lobbying on behalf of his constituency, he referred in this House to the intermediate development area status of Oswestry. Does he not agree that any measure which seeks to alter that status should be properly debated and approved by this House?

Sir A. Meyer: I would be the last person to wish to accuse my hon. Friend of lobbying intensively for intermediate area status for his own area. However, I must acknowledge a certain feeling of frustration about the ability in this House by using methods which have been so extolled by hon. Members on both sides of the House to arrive at the best decision in the course of such a process. This is the same sort of argument that arises over reform of local government, in relation to which most of us would concede that the arrangements finally concluded were not necessarily the best but in a great many cases reflected combinations of lobbies which happen to prevail at any particular moment. I am not convinced that this is the best way of operating.
It is not on those grounds that I wish to question the concept of our innate superiority of methods used to achieve a regional policy. There are times when I consider that it is not merely the methods we evolve to apply to the regions which

should be questioned but the very aims themselves which should be thought out anew. My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) raised this point and emphasised that we should not only take into account the level of unemployment. We must also consider the level of wages, the number of women who go out to work, and similar considerations.
Until I have more confidence than I have at present that our policy takes such considerations into account as fully as it should, I should not be unduly upset if I found that our national policy was being influenced more and more by considerations of our membership of the European Community. Even the best thought out national policy is inevitably somewhat parochial in approach and is bound to be influenced more by considerations of what influence can be exerted over footloose industry within the country than it is by considerations of what influence can be exerted on potential investors from outside the country and the Community. We need to take a less parochial look at the aims of regional policy than we do at present.
In my view by far the most effective forms of regional aid are not incentives or subsidies or even a congestion tax—much as I am attracted to the idea. Far more effective in their results are Government investment decisions about roads, ports, railways and airports. I voted—quite wrongly I now think—in favour of the decision on Maplin. I am convinced that the decision will have a powerful effect in sucking away Government resources from the areas where those resources are most badly needed for investment.
I have hammered out the argument week in and week out for more and better road communications in North Wales. If Wrexham and North Wales in general could be connected to the British motorway system I believe it would have a far greater effect in bringing about a higher rate of economic activity in North Wales than would incentives or special bribes to attract industry to the area.
It is for these reasons and because these decisions cannot possibly be affected by British membership of the EEC or by directives from Brussels that I am convinced that it is still open to the


Government to pursue a regional policy every bit as effective as that which has been pursued to date. I believe that the Opposition motion is misconceived and I shall have no hesitation in supporting the amendment.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I agree with many of the remarks of the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer). In these debates, as in most EEC-type debates, we experience curious inversions of position compared with the normal straightforward political issues. For example, I represent a constituency in a developing or under-developed area and we need as much regional aid as we can get and as much as we have been able to squeeze out of successive Governments.
I have been dissatisfied with the regional policy of the present Government. In my constituency we have struggled to obtain more regional assistance. We have agricultural and fishing industries, we are a diminishing industrial area, and we need support. Therefore, I was surprised to find my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) suggesting that in this country we had a good regional policy which was in danger of being smashed by some demons from Brussels. I take the reverse view. I believe that we have had an inadequate regional policy. I am not sure whether it will be improved, but whatever help comes out of the Common Market I welcome as a supplement to our own regional aid policy. It is to this matter that we should be directing our energies.
A significant point was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in pointing out that the regional percentage of aid to intermediate development areas in this country was 4 per cent. After hearing a figure like that, who is worried about an EEC ceiling for the central area of 20 per cent.?
Up to the middle of last year, hon. Members on this side of the House representing constituencies similar to mine pressed the Conservative Government to tell the House the net percentage of aid which they were giving to industry coming to Scotland. The Government were coy about the matter. They twisted in and out, they talked of discounted profits

and all the rest of it. Eventually, with great assistance from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) we got out of the Government a percentage figure in respect of Scotland. The figure amounted to 6 per cent. to 7 per cent. net aid in the area—that was the percentage of aid to Scotland under a Tory Government.
I was interested to know why the Government in their Industry Act pushed up the aid figure to 20 per cent. Why was there a sudden change of heart by the Tory Government in August 1972, a Government which had dragged their feet on regional policy for the first two and a half years of their existence? Why were my friends in the Regional Development Division of the Scottish Office suddenly tickled pink that all their arguments about raising age levels had been suddenly accepted? The answer is clear: the Government wanted to go to Brussels and say that the peripheral areas were receiving higher aid than Brussels might agree to.
They would have found it difficult to argue that the essential areas were being given less aid than the maximum suggested by Mr. Borschette. Therefore, they had to pitch British aid much higher than the level which the Community said was the proper level. In this way, they thought, they would have a credible argument for saying that other areas should get more. If the harmonisation is to be an upward process, I am absolutely behind it.
If Mr. Borschette was contemplating this level of grant in Brussels, why did he choose 20 per cent. in the Community in terms of regional development policy? The answer is that he had to go for the highest figure which was then being canvassed. It was politically impracticable to ask any country to cut its regional aid and it had to be pitched at the maximum. Our Government had to match the Six and to say that our aid was at least as good as that in the Community which we were joining. I am behind any aspect of regional policy if it works and politically one hopes that it will work. No country will see a major cut in this aspect of its policy to please the European Community.
We have the chance, if we want to go higher than 20 per cent., or to have some


new development, to go to the next summit meeting of Prime Ministers, the next heavy pressure bargaining meeting, and to make a political demand of this kind. If we can push up the level, we shall benefit ourselves and other countries with regional problems. I see no suggestions that the total amount of aid available for our developing areas will decline under the application of Community harmonisation rules.
One matter which worries me deeply was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes). It concerns what will happen when the regional policy comes from the Community. I am frightened that the British Treasury is taking the view that it is spending as much as it ought to spend on regional policy and that there is no economic case, as I suspect many Tories believe, for spending more. As a result, I fear that any money for regional development that we get from Brussels will be regarded as meaning that we need spend that much less. We do not want that. We want to ensure that any aid from Brussels is a supplement to what we spend and not a substitute for it.
For this reason, the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East, that the object of going for a regional policy in Europe is to get a quid pro quo for the CAP across the exchanges, is disastrous and misconceived. It is disastrous for several reasons, chiefly that the worse way of selling a policy in Europe is to put it forward simply as a method of getting money back from another policy which is disliked. We should press for a sound regional policy and insist that it is a supplement for the policies that we have developed in this country.
I was surprised by the attack made by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) on the idea of a Community regional policy. It may be smaller than we should like to see. But, surely, we want to get anything extra that we can. We have already had this push-up to 20 per cent. under the Industry Act, which I welcome. If we can get a supplement from the Community on top of that, my only complaint will be that it is not big enough. Let us fight to get it higher.
Let us give up this paranoid approach of sheltering Britain's allegedly good

regional policy from Continental lambasting. We ought to adopt quite a different approach. We ought to go in to get harmonisation upwards and the maximum benefit that we can out of regional development aid.
The official policy of the Labour Party in this matter is clear. It is that we accept at least the free trading area—the economic union of the Common Market. We may dislike the CAP and the sovereignty aspects, but we accept the EFTA content in the Common Market as a free trading area. If we accept that, we accept that the pull to the South-East will continue and we accept that the pull across the Channel into the northern industrial complex of Europe, which includes the South-East of England, will continue and become stronger. If we accept those points, it is in our interests to get a Community regional policy to offset the pull.
Hon. Members must realise that it will not be satisfactory to say that there is a European pull away from this country and that we must meet it solely by pushing British industry north and west into our regions. We must do it by getting in European capital as well as purely British capital. If that is the argument that we make, we have to plead for more integration with Europe and not less. We shall have politically to ask people in Hamburg, Paris, Dortmund and Essen to shed resources so that people in Scotland, Wales, Southern Italy and Western France may benefit. We shall not get the rich areas to shed resources to the poor areas if we say that Britain must stand out, that we are Gaullists and inward-looking.
I wanted to explain to the House the kind of regional policy I hope to see coming out of the Community. I shall not do that, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney tells us that we shall have a chance to debate this in full at a later date. We in this country have learned a great deal about regional policies. We know what we want a Community regional policy to do. We want it to be big and effective because, whatever happens, we shall feel this economic, integrationist, pull.
We should not be saying that we must let the British Parliament hold on to its own. We should go to Brussels and make


a case for a stronger and more effective policy. Our Members of Parliament should be in the European Parliament making these points. We should be there demanding that the regional policy is not just an offset for the CAP and that there should be no diminution by a Tory Government of what we are allowed to pay out because we get an EEC supplement. We should make a case for harmonisation upwards, for the maximum regional policy in this country, and for the largest supplement possible out of European regional funds.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Neil Marten: I was intrigued by the argument of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), who said that it was unsound to consider the regional policy in terms of anything that we might get from it being a quid pro quo for the CAP. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is an unsound way of looking at it. But why was this not said before the great debate last year? The argument was used then that one of the main benefits was that we should get back through the regional policy what we had paid out through the CAP. In the same way, before the vote was taken, we were told constantly that we could not increase our growth rate or our standard of living unless we got into the Common Market. However, in 1972, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was claiming a 5 per cent. growth rate when that of the Common Market was 3½ per cent. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister claimed an 8 per cent. increase in the standard of living in 1972.
Have we been misled? Those of us who opposed British entry were saying that we could increase our growth rate and our standard of living without going into the Common Market, and we have been proved right.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) made much the same point when he reminded the House that the arguments that he had put forward against the Common Market had been derided by some of his hon. Friends, who had now changed their tune and accepted what he said. All this deserves a deep examination of the way that the country has been misled time and time again about the Common Market. It has

been thoroughly bad for the ethics of politics.
This has been a debate about fringe matters, relatively speaking. We do not know what the Common Market's regional policy will be. We do not know what sum we shall receive. Figures are bandied about because they are convenient. But we have heard that kind of convenient argument before. When it actually comes about it is not the same at all.
The debate is really about the one little word "approved". Is there any Government supporter in this House calling himself a Member of the British Parliament who could wish the Common Market's regional policy to be decided in Brussels and not to be approved by this Parliament? Anyone who says that this Parliament should not approve it ought to resign his seat. We were not elected to do that sort of thing.
It is extraordinary that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has not intervened to answer the question that I put to him when he was good enough to give way to me. That is one reason why I shall not support the Government tonight. My right hon. Friend apparently cannot or will not answer a vital question that affects the sovereignty of this Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell), in an excellent speech straight from the heart, made much the same point—that Parliament must decide these matters, not the bureaucrats in Brussels. Admittedly the Government's amendment states that we can discuss and debate the matter, but it is significant that it leaves out the fact that Parliament will decide. This is the issue on which I have been fighting the Common Market the whole time. So if we get no answer to this direct question from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development or from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in an intervention, the whole House will have every right to be deeply suspicious that Parliament is being misled on this one issue. I make no bones about it.
In the same way, we are really dealing in this debate with the whole question of the way in which the Common Market is moving towards a federal State.
Action after action being taken in the Common Market seems to be moving in that way. Yet, when we ask the Prime Minister at Question Time whether he approves or disapproves of any move towards federalism, we are brushed off with the remark, "This question does not arise", and so on. But it is arising, and arising daily.
In this connection I should like to remind the House of that paragraph in the White Paper sponsoring our entry into the Common Market which stated that there would be no loss of essential national sovereignty. Surely, if Parliament cannot throw out the Common Market proposals on regional policy, we have lost an essential part of our national sovereignty.
A serious matter is being decided tonight—more serious than most people realise. The regrettable fact is that the Government benches are virtually empty and these serious arguments have not been heard by those who will later be coming in to vote on this matter. I know that it always happens, but it hurts when, on an important matter, the sovereignty of this Parliament is at stake.

Mr. Fell: If we are in a position constitutionally to decide on this kind of issue, why has my right hon. Friend put down this amendment at all?

Mr. Marten: I agree with my hon. Friend. This is a mystery to me. This is why I am deeply suspicious about it. It is no use my hon. Friends grinning, as though I am conjuring up some terrible bogy. It is terribly real.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to the speech by President Pompidou in April. I think it is called the Message to Parliament at the opening of Parliament after the elections and the new Parliament has assembled. I ask hon. Members to read it—copies can be obtained from the French Embassy—because in that speech President Pompidou makes one thing absolutely clear. Unfortunately, I have not got a copy of the speech with me, because when I came into the Chamber I had not intended to speak. However, President Pompidou makes it absolutely clear that the French Parliament must ensure the right of France to take independent

decisions. This point comes out time and again in his speech. I wish that the British Government would have a word with President Pompidou about his attitude towards these matters.
I should like to ask one question about Mr. Borschette's visit to the Prime Minister some time ago to discuss these matters. I understand that an undertaking was given by Mr. Borschette that existing United Kingdom regional policies would be allowed to remain. I understand that subsequently an emissary was sent to this country by the Commission with the instruction: "The Commission does not agree with what Mr. Borschette said". Therefore, the undertaking given to the Prime Minister was invalidated. Is there any truth in that story?
I have made a speech that is not anti-Common Market but is essentially pro-British Parliament. I should not like it to be thought that my speech is anti-Common Market. I was elected to this Parliament to represent the people in my constituency. This debate is about the question whether this Parliament will have the right to throw out these Common Market proposals on regional policy if they are not satisfactory to our constituents. We must retain that right.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I am glad to have the opportunity of intervening briefly towards the end of this debate because I have tried for the last five weeks to raise this matter on the Adjournment. There will not be time for me to advance a positive argument about the Community's regional development policies. However, I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) has indicated that the Opposition intend to raise this wider question on another occasion. I believe that there has been a certain artificiality in the attempt to disjoin questions of State aids to industry from the wider question of regional policy generally, and I cannot altogether follow my right hon. Friend in his attempt to do that.
Those who are concerned about regional aid—all who come from development districts; and none comes from a more peripheral region than myself—must take the view that national efforts to overcome the imbalances in


our economy have been wholly inadequate. This is true not only of this country but of all the member States of the Community. It is because there is a need for a massive transfer of resources across national frontiers that we recognise that we must consider this matter in an international framework.
I take the view that there are severe limitations in our national tools to steer investment to the appropriate regions. Those limitations were demonstrated clearly in the lifetime of the Labour Government. In my view, we failed to do all that we hoped by way of steering mobile investment to the development areas. I do not think that my right hon. Friend will dissent from that view. The weaknesses of our policies made it essential that we should project our efforts on a wider international framework.
In the short time at my disposal I do not want to concentrate on differences with my right hon. Friend. I want to deal with my criticisms of the Government's approach to this matter. Like many hon. Members who have spoken, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand), I take the view that the Government have not demonstrated a sufficiently clear understanding of the inadequacy of the Old Testament dispensation, as it was put by an earlier speaker, of the problem of State aids.
The division between the peripheral and central areas is highly artificial and has been recognised as such by spokesmen from the Commission, including Mr. George Thomson. Indeed, we are in a transitional phase of Community thinking and it would be helpful to the development of Community thinking on these problems if the Government would come out openly and say that this is an unacceptable system of division of aid.
I criticise the Government even more in other respects for their essentially Gaullist approach to the problems of regional development. They seem to give some substance to the French complaints about our approach and the view that we are seeking compensatory payments from Community funds for the cash that we are paying into the Common Agricultural Fund. So long as the Government adhere to this policy or give the impression that this is their reason for

going for Community aid to the regions, they will have no success in creating Community resources which are adequate to deal with the tasks that face us.
We have had no positive thinking from the Government on the new tools which are necessary at Community level to develop regional policies. We heard nothing of it in the speech by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. We have heard nothing about the need to use public investment to steer industry to the regions. We have heard nothing in support of the Commission's proposals for location control through congestion tax. We had a rather sterile repetition of what we have had in a number of earlier debates on this subject.
The greatest weakness of all in the Gaullist approach of the Government is the failure to recognise that this is a Community problem and one which the Community institutions themselves must be empowered to tackle. We cannot go on with old-fashioned nationalism in seeking to deal with this difficulty. The Community institutions must be the instruments for bringing about the change that we seek.
A number of hon. Members have spoken in terms of the Community supplementing national efforts. This is not good enough. The Community itself must shoulder these problems and must be the principal tool for tackling them if we are to convince people, particularly in the peripheral areas of the Community, that there is something in it for them, that the Community itself cares about the gross imbalances that exist.
There is much to be welcomed in the development of Community thinking as expressed in the Green Paper of Mr. Thomson. There is, first, the recognition that this regional development is central to the Community's target of achieving EMU by 1980. There is the recognition of the moral, political and social case for strengthening regional policy and the recognition of the inadequacy of past techniques, the analytical tools that have been applied, the economics and the statistics for the comparability of problems between the member States of the Community. There is also the recognition that an adequate fund must be set up for the purpose, although no figure has been put on it. Adequacy is the most


important test of all. I would go along with what my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield said about the scale of target that we should be looking at.
We must also welcome the willingness of the Community to look at disincentives to congestion and, finally, its willingness, expressed originally in the Committee on medium-term economic planning, to contemplate a publicly-owned Community venture such as the IRI in the South of Italy, as if it were a Community-based international enterprise board to steer industry to the regions most needing it.
This challenge is the largest challenge that the Community and this country face. If this country fails to meet the challenge, we can write off any prospect of European unity by 1980.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Shore: With leave of the House, may I briefly comment on some of the points raised in this interesting, important and worthwhile debate? I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and others of my hon. Friends that I am glad to hear their strong support for my proposal that before the recess we must have a major debate on the Community's emerging regional policy, when we will have the opportunity to look very carefully at the proposals that Mr. Thomson and others are making in Brussels.
It is a good common sense to counsel a little caution about what those proposals will contain. It is all very well for my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand) to say that, in his judgment, sums like 7,000 million dollars a year will be necessary to operate a really successful Community regional policy. He knows, as we all know, that sums of that magnitude are not easily raised, particularly if the principal beneficiaries are not the countries of the Continent of Europe but those which lie off the Continental coast—particularly Britain and Ireland.
I know that there are other areas in the Continent as well that would have a claim, but we must recognise that the Community has not had a regional policy in the 12 years of its development because that was not a priority objective for most of the countries that made up the

original member States. They were much more concerned with competition policy and the world of Mr. Borschette than with the new world—we do not yet know its dimensions—of Mr. George Thomson, our old colleague here.
I agree that we cannot easily separate the control of national aids for the regions from the wider subject of what may or may not come from a new Community regional policy. It would be helpful if these two matters could be brought together. But I put it again to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland that if these two matters are disjointed, they are disjointed because of the time scale involved.
The decision that I am inviting my hon. Friend to do his utmost to prevent is a decision which is to be taken by others affecting the British regions and British regional policy on 1st July this year. I believe that that decision will have a considerable impact on the British regions and British regional policy. The matter which my hon. Friend asks me to put in the scale against that, as I am willing, at the proper time, to do, is the matter which may not even come up for decision or operation at whatever minimal level under the Community Regional Fund until 1st January next year. So what we are talking about is something that is in existence and that we are being asked to balance against something that comes later and that is still entirely hypothetical, uncertain and unagreed. That is the nature of the problem.
Having said that, I should like to return to the main subject of the debate. I understand why the Minister sought to reassure us by saying that we must not get worried because the Commission and the Government would agree on the matters which they were discussing—the future definition of British regions for central or peripheral area classification under the Community's rules. I think that we would agree on the quality, the intensity, and the nature of the regional assistance which would be available to these different regions. That is what the Minister told us, but he did not go further than that.
One can reach agreement in two, or perhaps three, different ways. I can reach agreement with any hon. Members if I am prepared to agree with him. Any


hon. Member can reach agreement with me if he is prepared to agree with me. Alternatively—this may be the truth—the Government may be talking about agreement that is arrived at through some compromise between the positions taken up by the Commission and the Six so far and the Government's own regional policies, which were evolved by a British Parliament and not by the European authorities at all. Which of these is it? All of these are covered by the information that agreements are being reached, but clearly only one is satisfactory to the people of this country. The other two are entirely unsatisfactory.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that he deliberately did not answer my questions. I and others put one specific question to him. We all know what our own intermediate areas are. Will they or will they not be included in the central areas of the Community? I asked him also—this is even more important, and relevant, and was reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride), speaking for Wales—whether any existing development area of Britain will be subject to the lower ceilings of Community aid by being reclassified as a central area. I asked that question, and the Minister has not answered it.
This is not the first time in the history of debates in this House that Ministers have not answered questions put specifically to them. Indeed, some Ministers develop as a fine art the ability of not answering questions. They take great pride in their ability not to answer. But this is a special question. I want to explain why it is very special and why we feel a deep sense of outrage that the Minister has not answered it. The Minister obviously has not thought this matter through as he should have done. This is the first time in my experience in the House—as it is in the experience of most hon. Members, on both sides of the House —that I have ever had to discuss a matter on which I know that unless the House expresses its opinion now it will not have power to make a decision in four days' time. That is the truth.
In four days' time the Minister will announce what I suspect he already knows is the answer to this question. If he does not, someone will have to do an awful lot of overtime in the next few

days, and time is running out. Why will he not tell us the answers? He will not do so because if he told us the answers we might say "No" to him, whereas when he tells us on 1st July or 3rd July we cannot, under the treaty, influence the decision then taken. That is why this is a unique occasion. It is a great outrage to Parliament that the Minister has treated us so.
Before I read the motion again, I must make another point to the right hon. Gentleman to drive home my very strong feelings on this matter. There are other kinds of Community decisions in which the power of this House is greatly affected, greatly diminished and very much weakened. These are proposals which take the form of regulations or directives that are made by the Council of Ministers on a proposal of the Commission. But at least it can be said that when proposals of that kind come forward, although we lose the power to legislate there is still the possibility of interjecting the views and purpose of the House—as we did on the motion concerning juggernaut lorries—between the point when the Commission makes its proposal and the point, often a few weeks later, when the Council finally makes its decision. So we are not wholly wronged in that process and not wholly disarmed as a democratic assembly. But on this matter, above all, there is no second chance, because this is not a matter of dealing with a proposal made by the Commission to the Council of Ministers. Under the treaties this is a matter for decision by the Commission alone. That is why we feel such a deep sense of outrage at the way we have been treated.
The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) read to the House what we are inviting the House to do. I am glad that he did that. We are calling upon the Government
not to accept any decision of the EEC Commission affecting the regional policies of the United Kingdom until this House has debated and approved it.
Is there a Member of the House, on either side, who in all conscience can vote against the motion?

6.44 p.m.

The Minister for Industrial Development (Mr. Christopher Chataway): We have had in the past three hours an


extremely interesting and wholly forward-looking debate about the British regions and the Community. I am not entirely sure that it was the kind of debate that the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) would have wished, because it was a debate in which many hon. Members on both sides of the House expressed their belief in a Community regional policy and talked about the importance of developing that policy.
It should be recognised at the outset that we are already feeling the impact of the Common Market in the regions in a major way. The progress being made at present in the regions is faster than the progress that has been made for many years. Not only have we seen large falls in unemployment in every region of the country and vacancies in every region rising to levels that they have not attained for eight or nine years, but the attractions of the regions for investors have clearly been substantially enhanced by the Common Market.
My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) made that point and was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen). The hon. Member for Oswestry will be interested at least to note that the American Embassy, in contrast to some previous advice, is now advising American investors, in view of the growth rate and of membership of the Common Market, to invest in this country.

Mr. Biffen: The question that I put to my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) was whether it was his view that investment by British companies in Continental Europe would increase or diminish following membership of the Community. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell me what he thinks is the answer.

Mr. Chataway: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sorry that I misunderstood him. With the development of the Community, I would expect an increase in investment from Europe into this country and probably from this country into Europe. But what is unquestionable—and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) cannot get away from it—is that at present we are seeing a massive investment in the

regions of this country and that our membership of the Common Market is clearly playing a major part in that.

Mr. Marten: That is foreign investment from Europe.

Mr. Chataway: That is foreign investment. My hon. Friend may be interested in the careful, detailed work of Professor Dunning about American investment in Britain. He estimates that had we been in the Common Market from the outset we should have enjoyed some 2½ million dollars more investment during that period. But I leave that point.
The House will recognise that the major advantage to the regions of this country and to Scotland and Wales of membership of the Community is already showing. An indication of that is the fact that we have managed, simply by selective assistance, to approve already some 250 projects involving 22,000 jobs and we have under consideration 600 projects involving another 53,000 jobs, in addition to the falls in unemployment that have taken place in past months.

Mr. Shore: It is obviously too early to assess the impact of membership of the Common Market on regional policy, but surely the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that a fall in the jobless in Scotland has more to do with the fact that the Government are running a £4,000 million deficit on the Budget than with money coming from abroad.

Mr. Chataway: The sustained national growth is fundamental to regional policy. Again, I would argue—although the right hon. Gentleman would disagree—that our prospects for sustaining a much faster rate of economic growth are enormously enhanced by membership of the Community. In many parts of the House the benefit of the Common Market to our regions and to Scotland and Wales will already be recognised.

Mr. Rayond Fletcher: What about the motion?

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman has not been present for the whole of the debate.

Mr. Fletcher: Yes I have.

Mr. Chataway: The debate has been about the regions and about the EEC.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: What about the motion?

Mr. Chataway: I shall come to matters on which a number of hon. Members of the Opposition will be disappointed. They have made forecasts for a long time that the result of entry to the Common Market would be devastating to the regions. They have said that the level of our aids would be reduced. They will be disappointed.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: That is not the point.

Mr. Chataway: The debate has ranged wider than that. My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) and the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) and a number of other hon. Members have referred to the Regional Development Fund and have expressed their belief that the regional problems of any individual country in Europe cannot be solved wholly on the basis of the nation State. An impressive set of arguments has been deployed to that effect by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) urged that there should not be too much centralisation in the working out of the European regional policy. I am with him there. One of the major advantages of the changes in regional policy introduced in April last year is that they involve a substantial devolution of decision making. It will be clear from the Green Paper of Mr. George Thomson that he, too, is anxious to ensure that the European regional policy shall not be too centralised an affair. I take that to be one of the reasons why the Green Paper stressed that the Community's regional policy—the Regional Development Fund —should be a supplement to the efforts of national Governments and why the suggestion is inserted that as to a large part at least the fund should be administered through national Government. There has been today a useful exchange of ideas on the more important aspect of European regional policy, on the longterm future, on the broader implications.
I come to a much narrower matter which the right hon. Member for Stepney has raised and which has given rise to the debate. I do not think that I should give an unfair account of what the right

hon. Gentleman said if I suggested that his argument is based to a large extent upon the belief that the outcome of the discussions that we are having about Article 154 will be a reduction in either the level or the coverage of aids given to our regions.
This is not the first time that the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have made this suggestion, but the right hon. Gentleman has sought to raise anxieties in the regions that the effect of membership of the Community will be to reduce the effectiveness of our regional policy. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has once again assured the House that the Government do not intend to enter into any arrangement or accept arrangements which would involve such a reduction, either in coverage or in the level of the aids that have been given.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: What about the motion?

Mr. Chataway: This is exactly what the motion is about. The right hon. Gentleman bases his whole argument upon the familiar vision of European bureaucrats—foreigners to boot—grinding our regions into the dust. That is the picture that he portrayed to the House. He does not have to look in any depth at the arguments that there are for a co-ordination of regional policy throughout the Community. Other hon. Members did so in the debate and recognised—

Mr. Tuck: rose—

Mr. Chataway: No, I will not give way. I must reply to those who have spoken and who have attended.

Mr. Tuck: The right hon. Gentleman cannot answer. I therefore leave.

Mr. Chataway: I greatly regret that that appearance was so brief.
I turn to answer the points raised in the debate. The plain fact is that there is an advantage to us, as to other regions in the Community, in ensuring that there is a measure of co-ordination. That is what Article 154 of the Treaty of Accession is about. That is the purpose of the exercise. We are not talking about a conspiracy on the part of other European countries or of officials in Brussels


to harm our regional policy. We are talking about the process of arriving at a common régime.
What are the advantages? First, it will reduce the possibilities which at present exist for the different regions of the Community to bid against each other for mobile investment. Secondly, it will enable regional policy to have an effect because, by limiting the amount of aid that is given in the more prosperous parts of the Community, it will be more possible for a regional policy at a reasonable cost to have an effect and give an importance and advantage to those who are investing in the regions. That is what it is about.

Mr. Shore: The House wants to know. If the right hon. Gentleman is trying to be reassuring, like the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, surely he can answer the specific questions put to him and then we can be a little happier.

Mr. Chataway: The right hon. Gentleman has put to my right hon. Friend and myself a number of questions which he knows cannot be answered at this moment. He asks which areas of the country are to be central and which are to be peripheral. He knows very well that we are in discussion at this moment. He knows very well that the final form of the settlement has not been arrived at. If it had been arrived at, as my right hon. Friend made clear, he would have told the House today. My right hon. Friend has given the assurance that matters—that neither the coverage nor the level of our aids will, in our view, be affected.
My hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) have been consistently opposed to membership of the Community, opposed to the procedures that are involved.

Mr. Fell: Would my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Chataway: I must get on.

Mr. Fell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not giving way. Therefore, the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) must resume his seat.

Mr. Chataway: My hon. Friend put to me a question several times over. I hope that he will allow me to try to reply to it. My hon. Friend asked, "Why do you not accept the motion?" He is opposed to the procedures which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster outlined to the House in considerable detail and which safeguard the interests of individual nations, but which yet make it possible for us to arrive at common decisions with the rest of the Community, because that is what is involved.
The motion is based in effect upon the forecast that the regions will suffer from the outcome of Article 154. If there is no change in our regional policies, I imagine that the motion will be recognised to have been unnecessary. We believe not only that the Regional Development Fund will be of value to the Community and that industry and our regions are already benefiting from membership of the Community, but that the discussions that we have had about Article 154 will result in a settlement which is entirely satisfactory to the regions of England, to Scotland and to Wales.
We recognise that on the more important regional questions within the Community which have been interestingly debated today the House will want to have further time for debate. On that basis, I hope that the House will support our amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 252.

Division No. 174.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Boscawen, Hn. Robert


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Batsford, Brian
Bossom, Sir Clive


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bowden, Andrew


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Braine, Sir Bernard


Astor, John
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Bray, Ronald


Atkins, Humphrey
Benyon, W.
Brewis, John


Awdry, Daniel
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Brinton, Sir Tatton


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Biggs-Davison, John
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Blaker, Peter
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)




Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hicks, Robert
Pink, R. Bonner


Bryan, Sir Paul
Higgins, Terence L.
Pounder, Rafton


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N &amp;M)
Hiley, Joseph
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Burden, F. A.
Holland, Philip
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Holt, Miss Mary
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hornby, Richard
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Carlisle, Mark
Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Raison, Timothy


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Relgate)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Cary, Sir Robert
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Redmond, Robert


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hunt, John
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Churchill, W. S.
Iremonger, T. L.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
James, David
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cooke, Robert
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ridsdale, Julian


Coombs, Derek
Jessel, Toby
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Cooper, A. E.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Cordle, John
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Corfieid, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Jopling, Michael
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Cormack, Patrick
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Costain, A. P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rost, Peter


Critchley, Julian
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Royle, Anthony


Crouch, David
Kershaw, Anthony
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kimball, Marcus
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


d'Avlgdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Scott, Nicholas


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj-Gen. Jack
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dean, Paul
Knox, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Lamont, Norman
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lane, David
Shersby, Michael


Dixon, Piers
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Simeons, Charles


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut n C'field)
Sinclair, Sir George


Drayson, G. B.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Skeet, T. H. H.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Smith, Dudley (W'wick a L'mington)


Dykes, Hugh
Loveridge, John
Soref, Harold


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Luce, R. N.
Speed, Keith


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Spence, John


Elliot, Capt.Walter (Carshalton)
MacArthur, Ian
Sprcat, Iain


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tie-upon-Tyne, N.)
McCrindle, R. A.
Stainton, Keith


Emery, Peter
McLaren, Martin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Eyre, Reginald
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Farr, John
Macmilian,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stokes, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Sutcliffe, John


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Maddan, Martin
Tapsell, Peter


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Madel, David
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Fortescue, Tim
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Foster, Sir John
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Tebbit, Norman


Fowler, Norman
Mawby, Ray
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Fox, Marcus
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Gardner, Edward
Miscampbell, Norman
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Gibson-Watt, David
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Tilney, John


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Money, Ernie
Trew, Peter


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Tugendhat, Christopher


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Monro, Hector
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Gorst, John
Montgomery, Fergus
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gower, Raymond
More, Jasper
Waddington, David


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Gray, Hamish
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Green, Alan
Morrison, Charles
Wall, Patrick


Grieve, Percy
Mudd, David
Walters, Dennis


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Murton, Oscar
Ward, Dame Irene


Grylls, Michael
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Neave, Airey
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Gurden, Harold
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Normanton, Tom
Wilkinson, John


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Onslow, Cranley
Winterton, Nicholas


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Osborn, John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Worsley, Marcus


Haselhurst, Alan
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Hastings, Stephen
Parkinson, Cecil
Younger, Hn. George


Havers, Sir Michael
Peel, Sir John



Hawkins, Paul
Percival, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hayhoe, Barney
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and Mr. Walter Clegg.


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Pike, Miss Mervyn



Heseltine, Michael









NOES


Abse, Leo
Freeson, Reginald
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Molloy, William


Allen, Scholefield
Garrett, W. E.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Armstrong, Ernest
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Ashley, Jack
Golding, John
Moyle, Roland


Ashton, Joe
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Atkinson, Norman
Gourlay, Harry
Murray, Ronald King


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Ogden, Eric


Barnes, Michael
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
O'Halloran, Michael


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
O'Malley, Brian


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Oram, Bert


Baxter, William
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Orme, Stanley


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Oswald, Thomas


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hamling, William
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hardy, Peter
Padley, Walter


Bishop, E. S.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Paget, R. T.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hattersley, Roy
Palmer, Arthur


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Body, Richard
Heffer, Eric S.
Pardoe, John


Booth, Albert
Hilton, W. S.
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hooson, Emlyn
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Horam, John
Perry, Ernest G.


Bradley, Tom
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Brown, Ronald (Shoredltch &amp; F'bury)
Huckfield, Leslie
Price, William (Rugby)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Probert, Arthur


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Radice, Giles


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hunter, Adam
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Cant, R. B.
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Richard, Ivor


Carmichael, Neil
Janner, Greville
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
John, Brynmor
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Brc'n &amp; R'dnor)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Roper, John


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Rose, Paul B.


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rowlands, Ted


Cronin, John
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Sandelson, Neville


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Judd, Frank
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Kaufman, Gerald
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Kelley, Richard
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Kerr, Russell
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dalyell, Tam
Kinnock, Neil
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Lambie, David
Sillars, James


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Latham, Arthur
Silverman, Julius


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lawson, George
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Leadbitter, Ted
Small, William


Oavis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Leonard, Dick
Spearing, Nigel


Deakins, Eric
Lestor, Miss Joan
Stallard, A. W.


de Freltas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lewis, Arthur (W, Ham, N.)
Steel, David


Delargy, Hugh
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lipton, Marcus
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Dempsey, James
Lomas, Kenneth
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Dolg, Peter
Loughlin, Charles
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Dormand, J. D.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Swain, Thomas


Driberg, Tom
McBride, Neil
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McCartney, Hugh
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Dunnett, Jack
McElhone, Frank
Tinn, James


Edelman, Maurice
Machin, George
Tomney, Frank


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Torney, Tom


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackie, John
Tuck, Raphael


Ellis, Tom
Mackintosh, John P.
Urwin, T. W.


English, Michael
Maclennan, Robert
Varley, Eric G.


Evans, Fred
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Ewing, Harry
McNamara, J. Kevin
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Faulds, Andrew
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fell, Anthony
Marquand, David
Wallace, George


Fisher, Mrs.Doris (B'ham,Ladywood)
Marten, Neil
Watkins, David


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Weitzman, David


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Meacher, Michael
Wellbeloved, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Foot, Michael
Mendelson, John
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Ford, Ben
Mikardo, Ian
Whitlock, William


Forrester, John
Millan, Bruce
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Milne, Edward
Williams. Alan (Swansea. W.)







Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Mr. Donald Coleman and Mr. Joseph Harper.


Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Woot, Robert

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put:—

The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 250.

Division No. 175.]
AYES
[7.16 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Eyre, Reglnald
Lane, David


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Farr, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Flnsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut'nC'field)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Astor, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Atkins, Humphrey
Fookes, Miss Janet
Loveridge, John


Awdry, Daniel
Fortescue, Tim
Luce, R. N.


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Foster, Sir John
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fowler, Norman
MacArthur, Ian


Balniel, Rt. Hn Lord
Fox, Marcus
McCrindle, R. A.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
McLaren, Martin


Batsford, Brian
Gardner, Edward
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gibson-Watt, David
Macmillan, Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Benyon, W.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maddan, Martin


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gorst, John
Madel, David


Biggs-Davison. John
Gower, Raymond
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Blaker, Peter
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mather, Carol


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Gray, Hamish
Maude, Angus


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Green, Alan
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Bossom, Sir Clive
Grieve, Percy
Mawby, Ray


Bowden, Andrew
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Braine, Sir Bernard
Grylls, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bray, Ronald
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Miscampbell, Norman


Brewis, John
Gurden, Harold
Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Money, Ernie


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Monro, Hector


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Montgomery, Fergus


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hannam, John (Exeter)
More, Jasper


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Burden, F. A.
Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Charles


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hastings, Stephen
Mudd, David


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Havers, Sir Michael
Murton, Oscar


Carlisle, Mark
Hawkins, Paul
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hayhoe, Barney
Neave, Airey


Cary, Sir Robert
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Chapman, Sydney
Heseltine, Michael
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hicks, Robert
Normanton, Tom


Chichester-Clark, R.
Higgins, Terence L.
Onslow, Cranley


Churchill, W. S.
Hiley, Joseph
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Osborn, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Holland, Philip
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Cooke, Robert
Holt, Miss Mary
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Coombs, Derek
Hornby, Richard
Page, John (Harrow, W.) Parkinson, Cecil


Cooper, A. E.
Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Peel, Sir John


Cordis, John
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Percival, Ian


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Howell, David (Guildford)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Costain, A. P.
Hunt, John
Pink, R. Bonner


Critchley, Julian
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pounder, Rafton


Crouch, David
Iremonger, T. L.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
James, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


d'Avigdor'Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.Jack
Jessel, Toby
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Dean, Paul
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Ralson, Timothy


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jopling, Michael
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Dixon, Piers
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Redmond, Robert


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Drayson, G. B.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rees, Peter (Dover)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kershaw, Anthony
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dykes, Hugh
Kimball, Marcus
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridsdale, Julian


Elliott, Capt. Waller (Carshalton)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Elliott, R. w. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.N.)
Knox, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Emery, Peter
Lamont, Norman
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)




Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)




Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Rost, Peter
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Wall, Patrick


Royle, Anthony
Stokes, John
Walters, Dennis


Russell, Sir Ronald
Sutcliffe, John
Ward, Dame Irene


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Tapsell, Peter
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Scott, Nicholas
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Scott-Hopkins, James
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Tebbit, Norman
Wilkinson, John


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Winterton, Nicholas


Shersby, Michael
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Simeons, Charles
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Sinclair, Sir George
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Skeet, T. H. H.
Tilney, John
Worsley, Marcus


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mlngton)
Trew, Peter
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Soref, Harold
Tugendhat, Christopher
Younger, Hn. George


Speed, Keith
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin



Spence, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Sproat, Iain
Waddington, David
Mr. Bernard Weatberill and Mr. Walter Clegg.


Stainton, Keith
Walder, David (Clitheroe)



Stanbrook, Ivor






NOES


Abse, Leo
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Allen, Scholefield
Driberg, Tom
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dunnett, Jack
Judd, Frank


Ashley, Jack
Edeiman, Maurice
Kaufman, Gerald


Ashton, Joe
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Kelley, Richard


Atkinson, Norman
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Kerr, Russell


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ellis, Tom
Kinnock, Neil


Barnes, Michael
English, Michael
Lambie, David


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Evans, Fred
Latham, Arthur


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Ewing, Harry
Lawson, George


Baxter, William
Faulds, Andrew
Leadbitter, Ted


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony (Wedgwood)
Fell, Anthony
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Bennett, James(Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham,Lady wood)
Leonard, Dick


Bidwell, Sydney
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Bishop, E. S.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Foot, Michael
Lipton, Marcus


Body, Richard
Ford, Ben
Lomas, Kenneth


Booth, Albert
Forrester, John
Loughlin, Charles


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Boyden, James(Bishop Auckland)
Freeson, Reginald
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Bradley, Tom
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Garrett, W. E.
McBride, Neil


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Gilbert, Dr. John
McCartney, Hugh


Buchan, Norman
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
McElhone, Frank


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Golding, John
Machin, George


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mackenzie, Gregor


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Gourlay, Harry
Mackie, John


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mackintosh, John P.


Cant, R. B.
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Maclennan, Robert


Carmichael, Neil
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightslde)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
McNamara, J. Kevin


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Castle, Rt. Hon. Barbara
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marquand, David


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hamling, William
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Concannon, J. D.
Hardy, Peter
Meacher, Michael


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hattersley, Roy
Mendelson, John


Crawshaw, Richard
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mikardo, Ian


Cronin, John
Heffer, Eric S.
Millan, Bruce


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hilton, W. S.
Milne, Edward


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hooson, Emlyn
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Horam, John
Molloy, William


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Dalyell, Tam
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Huckfield, Leslie
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Davies, Denzll (Llanelly)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Moyle, Roland


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Murray, Ronald King


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ogden, Eric


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hunter, Adam
O'Halloran, Michael


Deakins, Eric
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
O'Malley, Brian


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Janner, Greville
Oram, Bert


Delargy, Hugh
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oswald, Thomas


Dempsey, James
John, Brynmor
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Dolg, Peter
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Padley, Walter


Dormand, J D.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Paget, R. T.




Palmer, Arthur




Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles







Pardoe, John
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c tle-u-Tyne)
Urwin, T. W.


Farker, John (Dagenham)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Varley, Eric G.


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Silkln, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Wainwrlght, Edwin


Perry, Ernest G.
Sillars, James
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Silverman, Julius
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Price, William (Rugby)
Skinner, Dennis
Wallace, George


Probert, Arthur
Small, William
Watkins. David


Radice, Giles
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Weltzman, David


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Spearing, Nigel
Wellbeloved, James


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Stallard, A. W.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Steel, David
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Richard, Ivor
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Whitlock, William


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Roper, John
Swain, Thomas
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Rose, Paul B.
Thomas, Rt.Hn.George(Cardiff,W.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Woof, Robert


Rowlands, Ted
Tinn, James



Sandelson, Neville
Tomney, Frank
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Sheldon, Robert (Ashlon-under-Lyne)
Torney, Tom
Mr. Donald Coleman and Mr. Joseph Harper.


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Tuck, Raphael

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House acknowledges the declared intention of the European Communities to ensure the harmonious development of the

economies of Member States by reducing the differences existing between the various regions, welcomes the progress made by the EEC Commission towards a Regional Development Fund, and recognises that this House will wish to debate these issues.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

7.24 p.m.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I beg to move,
That this House, while supporting stringent penalties against the inhuman trade in illegal immigrants, believes that the House of Lords' decision, confirming the retrospective effect of the Immigration Act 1971, has created profound uncertainty and fear of blackmail in the immigrant community; believes that retrospective penal legislation is contrary to democratic traditions; and urges the Government therefore not to expel immigrants guilty of no other offence who were settled here six months or more before the 1971 Act received the Royal Assent.
There will be those who say that this is a debate about illegal immigration, and there will be some truth in that. The motion—and it is a motion which we recognise to be in some ways difficult to express, because it involves highly complicated matters—does not attempt in any way to condone illegal immigration. The Opposition recognise that illegal immigration can have a serious effect on the trust between the host community and the immigrant communities.
We would ask the immigrant communities not to protect those who engage in what is as inhumane a trade as the drug trade and one which has little concern for the future and for the status of those with whom it deals. We recognise the tragedy by which many people in India and Pakistan are persuaded to sell up all that they have to pay those who are engaged in this trade. They often find themselves later deported from this country—and, of course, they should be—and returned to their own country with no means of livelihood.
It is not the Opposition's case to condone that kind of operation, but it is part of our case to refer to the ways in which penalties have been made retrospective on those who came to this country between 1968 and the passage of the Immigration Act 1971, and the ways in which confidential information has been supplied by certain Government Departments. Further, if the effect on the relations between the police and the immigrant community is not cleared up and cleared up soon, the result will be so grave that it would be an abdication of the Opposition's responsibility if we were

not to bring these matters before the House.
The offence is not to be condoned, but the treatment of the offender is a matter which the House must consider. The 1971 Act has been interpreted by another place as making retrospective penalties against illegal immigrants. It has abolished the status of irremovability, which existed under the Immigration Act 1968. That Act provided that if a person had nit been prosecuted within six months, he became irremovable and could not be prosecuted. That was borne out by the number of illegal immigrants who had been here for more than six months who were seen subsequently by the police and informed that they were not open to prosecution and could make their lives in this country.
I do not say that that was not an anomaly. I do not say that the House was necessarily wise to allow that anomaly to continue. But I do say that that was the position as understood by those who came to this country illegally between 1968 and 1971.
In some ways, perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the imposition of retrospective penalties is not the effect on perhaps 1 per cent. of the immigrant community who arrived illegally. The highest estimate which I have seen is that about 10,000 persons arrived illegally. That is considerably less than 1 per cent. of the immigrant community legally settled in this country. It is the danger that the relationship of the host community with the 99 per cent. of the immigrant community who are legally here will deteriorate to a stage when the House will regret that it never properly debated the effects of retrospective penalties which is perhaps the most serious aspect.
It is our fear that already the sense of security of the immigrant community has been seriously undermined. In that context I shall quote from a letter which has been sent to me and, I think, to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department by the Dean of Liverpool. The Dean is also Chairman of the Liverpool Community Relations Council. The Dean says:
Without entering here into a discussion on the merits or demerits of the Act itself, we are deeply concerned that the implementation of retrospective legislation against these immigrants …may have serious repercussions on


the already delicately balanced state of race relations in this country.
That is echoed by the Chairman of the Community Relations Commission established by the Government. He said:
We are now seeing the consequences we feared. I said that the Bill's effect"—
he is referring to the Immigration Act 1971—
must be to increase acutely the sense of insecurity already felt by minority groups living here and that it would do incalculable harm to community relations; and so it has.
I shall refer to one example to show how complex these matters can be. They are perhaps more complex than a simple black and white statement about legality or illegality.
I have a constituent, Mr. Shah Mohammed, a British citizen who came here about seven years ago. Since he was entitled to do so, he applied for naturalisation. He came as a legal immigrant. In 1967 he applied for his family to join him—three daughters and a son. On 5th May 1967, I received a letter from the then Minister of State, Home Office, Mr. David Ennals, in which he said:
I understand from correspondence we have had that Mr. Mohammed's 17½-year-old boy is in fact his stepson but he also will be admissible if he comes with Mr. Shah Mohammed's wife.
The mills of the Home Office may grind surely but they grind exceedingly slow.
Many dozens of letters later, several interviews later and, indeed, three years later, Mr. Mohammed's dependants had still not joined him in Britain. His son was no longer within the age of dependency and we were told, therefore, that he could no longer join his family, despite the letter from which I have quoted indicating that he was entitled to do so.
The son, in desperation, arrived illegally at the end of 1970. He did not inform his father of his arrival and in 1971 he was picked up by the police. He had been here more than six months and was told by the police that he could stay. But his father, who is a law-abiding citizen, was extremely shocked by the manner of his son's arrival. He questioned him about how he had managed to arrive illegally and informed

the police of those responsible. One of those responsible is today serving three years' imprisonment as a direct result of my constituent's information. I ask the House how likely it is that such a man would act in the way Mr. Mohammed did had he known what he now knows—that his son would on 15th February 1973 be taken into Pentonville without being allowed to contact his relatives and without legal representation. He has been there ever since.
I am not sure whether this was what Parliament intended. I have enough respect and trust in my colleagues to believe that Parliament could not have intended this kind of case. There are many other cases in Gravesend, Southall, Leyton, and elsewhere, and I am sure my hon. Friends from such areas will, if called, be able to give the House similar details. I mention only nine cases—I shall not say more about them—in all of which the police were informed and told the immigrants that they would not be pursued or prosecuted, but in which the immigrants have subsequently been arrested, some at their place of work and many without anybody further being informed. Again I am bound to ask whether this was what Parliament intended.
The Home Secretary replying to a Question on 12th June said that this was
…what we believed the law to be and what we intended it to be."—[OFFIICIAL REPORT, 12th June, 1973; Vol. 857, c. 1207.]
I respect the right hon. Gentleman's loyalty to his predecessor, but I find it difficult completely to accept what he said.
If that was the intention of the Government, it was never either explained or debated during the long course of the passage of the Immigration Act through the House. Indeed, it is open to question whether the matter was ever made clear. The hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) has said that it was, but I quote two other people who have at least equal expertise. In the Lords' judgment, Lord Wilberforce said:
The machinery which has been used in order to effect the detention of the appellants is set out in a complicated series of provisions in the Act of 1971. I regret that in a matter which affects directly so many individuals so labyrinthine a path requires to be followed.


Lord Salmon said:
I feel bound to express concern that the draftsmen of this Act should have chosen to achieve its retrospective effect through a labyrinth of verbiage which may well have been as perplexing to many of those who had to consider it in Parliament as it was to many of those it has deprived of their constitutional rights.
One is bound to ask whether there was not a duty on Ministers where the liberty of individuals was concerned—and in this case the liberty of individuals was indeed concerned—to explain to Parliament exactly what the consequences of the Act would be.
It may be, of course, that Ministers themselves did not understand the Act. I think some might not have understood at least some parts of that extremely complicated legislation. What I am sure about is that, because the expression of retrospective penalties was so vague, many immigrants understood of the Act what they were told much more clearly—that it would not have retrospective effect. On 8th March 1971, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said:
…it is enormously important to reassure the immigrants already here as part of our community that they will have no loss or status under the Bill, that in this country there will be no first and second-class citizens." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March 1971; Vol. 813, c. 44.]
Further questioned on 17th June 1971, on Third Reading, the right hon. Gentleman said:
I said at an earlier stage that I did not intend in any way to prejudice the position of people already here."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th June 1971; Vol. 819, c. 569.]
Again, it is of course true that immigrants failed to understand that these words of the Home Secretary were subject to that complicated set of schedules which, taken together, indicated that illegal immigrants were not covered by this statement. But again one is bound to say that that was never made clear.
So the Act as we now know operates retrospectively in a way which has been described by the Committee of Justice in its annual report as follows:
… with the result that those who entered illegally before the Act was passed are now condemned to live the rest of their lives in England under the fear of detection, harassment or even blackmail, however long they have resided here.

It is a terrible phrase, "the rest of their lives", and again one wonders whether that was what Parliament intended. Was it really Parliament's intention to put these people—and, as I will come to show, many thousands more—in fear and under threat of blackmail for the rest of their lives?

Mr. David Steel: Perhaps the right hon. Lady will include in her quotations an exchange which took place in another place on 19th July 1971 during the Committee stage of the measure. On an amendment moved by my noble Friend Lord Wade, the then Minister of State, given an opportunity to talk about the effect of the Bill on those already settled here, said:
Some changes in the position of people already settled here are inevitable. It would he quite wrong to overstate them and we should have some thought of the dangers in breeding quite unnecessary insecurity in the minds of immigrants already established here." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 19th July, 1971; Vol. 322, c. 675.]
That was the view of the Government on the possibilities of alteration of status.

Mrs. Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which underlines my point. The question is whether it was Parliament's intention to create what has unquestionably now been created—a most profound rift between the immigrant community and the host community. Already one important Asian body, the Indian Workers Association, one of the most representative bodies, has withdrawn from all Government bodies concerned with race relations. Others have threatened to do so.
There are particularly sensitive areas which the House must consider. One of these is the relations between the immigrants and the police. The relations between the police and in particular the Asian community have, by and large, been good. The police have said on more than one occasion that most of the Asian community are law-abiding and that the police do not find it difficult to work with them. But what has happened now of course is the development of a widespread fear that when anyone is picked up for a minor offence —I have already had reported to me


many traffic offences involving immigrants, some of them even parking offences—inquiries are made and in some cases people are being taken to the police station for questioning about their status in this country. Only two days ago in my constituency two Asians were taken in for questioning on minor matters. Both were released because they were legally in this country. In one case, however, there was a detention of several hours. This is hardly the way to establish good relations in this highly sensitive area.
The first question I want to ask the Home Secretary is whether he can give us an assurance that the police will be guided not to ask for passports in minor cases when they have no suspicion whatever that the person involved may be guilty of an offence in this respect. This is exceedingly important, because we must not escalate strain between the police and the great majority of legal immigrants. Secondly, there is the whole area of social security. We know that over the past three years it has been possible for immigrants applying for social benefits or national insurance cards to be asked to show their passports. We further know that if the passport or the information given creates any suspicion in the minds of the social security officer, this information is handed on to the Home Office.
The Government would be most unwise to shake public confidence in the confidentiality of Government records of this kind in a desperate pursuit of a tiny minority of illegal immigrants. Indeed, I always understood that under the Civil Service code personal information was kept confidential and although I admit that the Secretary of State for Social Services, in an answer on 7th November 1970, said that in certain rare cases this might happen, I do not believe that the House realised until recently the extent to which this breach of confidentiality had gone. Indeed, it is now clear that the trade union most concerned, the Civil and Public Services Association, had not appreciated this position and it has now called upon its 55,000 members in social security officers not to co-operate with the Government in this regard.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Would the hon. Lady not agree that it is slightly anomalous, if these

immigrants, irrespective of how many there are, entered this country illegally, that there should be no check upon a national insurance card being given to them? If that is the case, it would be an incentive to illegal immigration. Once that incentive was taken away, perhaps some of the incentive which is responsible for illegal immigration would be lost.

Mrs. Williams: Under previous legislation, when the immigrant was already in this country and had not been prosecuted for six months he was entitled to a national insurance card. The position about which we are concerned, and one which I would still regard as being not wholly intended, relates to the retrospection issue. People who gained national insurance cards after six months with total legality are now to be questioned about that. I am not in any way suggesting that information should not be available about illegal immigrants following the passage of the 1971 Act. Even then my view is that any breach of confidentiality of a Government Department's records should be fully debated in the House and it should be set out precisely in what cases—and such cases should be laid down in Parliament—such breaches of confidentiality would be permitted.
The only answer to this question, and it is one to which the intervention by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) has pointed, is the declaration of an amnesty for those who have been here for more than six months and who were therefore not subject to prosecution between 1968 and the passage of the 1971 Immigration Act. In other words, Parliament should restore the position to what it was understood to be before the passage of the 1971 Act.
Again I can quote a powerful advocate of this view in the shape of the Chairman of the Race Relations Board, Sir Geoffrey Wilson. He said:
The best way of restoring confidence would be for the House of Lords to pass Lord Avebury's Bill which would remove the threat of summary expulsion from those people who, until a recent court ruling, had every reason to assume that they were secure.
It may be that the Home Secretary will say that he cannot concede an amnesty. I feel that the damage being done to race relations among the legal majority who


are here is such that in time he will come to believe that this is the best thing to do.
If he feels unable to concede that, I would ask him at the least to put in as clear terms as possible the executive discretion that he has now taken upon himself. He has told the House that he will operate the removal process with compassion and firmness. That process is not subject to any appeal; it cannot be raised in the courts and, as we know, in many cases there has been no way in which the immigrant can put his case.
I ask the Home Secretary to consider the possibility of allowing those who are about to be removed, who have been apprehended by the police and who have been here for more than six months and are not therefore subject to prosecution, to be allowed to put their case, not to him, because I do not believe that this should be a matter of executive discretion, but to the Immigration Appeals Tribunal.
I would also ask him to lay down as precisely as he can the criteria which in his view should be taken into account in deciding whether someone should be removed. This involves such things as their family responsibilities, because the right hon. Gentleman will know that it was quite legal for families to come in when they were dependants of those no longer able to be prosecuted. There is an almost desperate anomaly in the circumstances.
Civil liberties do not erode at the top: they erode at the bottom, among the most under-privileged, the most poor, the least popular. If the House cares—and I believe that it has always cared—about civil liberties, it must tonight take the not wholly popular but deeply important step of satisfying itself that the constitutional rights and civil rights of these people have been adequately protected by us.

7.48 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Robert Carr): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof
'endorses Her Majesty's Government's determination to halt illegal immigration; declines to give priority for settlement to those who came here knowing their entry to be illegal; has confidence that individual cases will be dealt with with firmness tempered by com-

passion; and believes that this policy is in the best interests of community relations and of those who entered legally or are waiting to do so.'
Before beginning my argument may I say that I hope that the House will forgive me if this evening I do not give way as I am usually prepared to do? We have a short debate and, as the House knows, interruptions and explanations take up a lot of time. It is better that as many people as possible should be able to speak, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will do his best to reply to the points that have been raised.
This debate is essentially about good community relations. I will start with a few basic facts and principles of policy to set this important although relatively narrow subject in its proper perspective.
It is easy to concentrate all our remarks and all the publicity outside the House on the failures in good race relations and on examples of troubles and cases of discrimination, real or alleged. Of course there are failures and of course, unfortunately, there is prejudice and discrimination, and we have a very long way to travel before we can be satisfied. It may be right to draw attention to and take notice of our failures; indeed, I am sure that it is. It is natural that those who represent the immigrant communities particularly, and also those whose job it is to help to foster and maintain good race relations, should be sensitive about any difficulties or failures and make sure that they are noted.
But there is another duty which we all have, and that is to draw attention to the overall success of community relations in this country, because success rather than failure is the keynote of race relations in Britain. There can be few countries which would have so cheerfully and in such a short time received with overall friendliness so many people from other lands. There can be few countries which could have absorbed this great mixture of nationalities with so much tolerance and so little friction, and there can be few countries in which those who come here are treated as first-class citizens from the day they arrive.
It does no service to community relations to underplay the tremendous achievement of the British people in accepting so many people with so much tolerance and so little friction. It is the


people of this country who will determine whether we have good community relations through the extent of their natural tolerance. Laws can help and support, institutions can help and support, but in the end what matters is the natural sense of tolerance of the British people.
The Government and Parliament have a duty to lead and support and therefore to try to increase the mood of tolerance, but I do not believe that the British people react well to being constantly lectured and sometimes hectored and criticised over some admitted failures when their record of tolerance and friendliness is basically so good. If our community relations in Britain are to remain remarkably good—still more if they are to be further improved, as it is our passionate hope that they shall be—my job and the Government's job, whatever party is in government, is to ensure that immigration is strictly controlled and that the rules are observed. That is the compact which we have with the British people and it is a compact which I intend to honour.
There are, therefore, four basic principles of policy to which the Government adhere. The first is that there should be no second-class citizens in Britain. Everyone who was born here or who has come here legally should be equal before the law and treated equally in the practices of daily life. We do not live up to that perfectly, but that is our commitment and that is what my colleagues and I will do our best to achieve.
Secondly, because we are a very heavily populated country with, in general, a labour force adequate to our needs, and because over the last 20 years we have absorbed an exceptionally large number of immigrants into our midst, our principle is that new permanent immigration should be reduced to an inescapable minimum.
The third basic principle of policy on which the Government base themselves is that our small capacity to accept new permanent immigrants must be almost wholly reserved for the two categories of people to whom we have special responsibilities as a country, namely, first, the close dependent relatives of heads of households already lawfully settled here; and, secondly, those people who, as a result of our imperial past, are citizens of this country and of no other.
The fourth principle is that, if we are to honour in practice and not just in words the first three principles, we must do all in our power to halt the evil trade of illegal immigration and not grant easily or automatically to those who have deliberately come here illegally the rights and privileges which attach to those who have been born our citizens or to those who have been properly and lawfully accepted for settlement.
It is mainly about the fourth principle that we are arguing tonight, but I do not believe that one can separate that principle from the other three.
Although I fully accept the intentions and spirit behind much of what the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) said, I genuinely believe that the Opposition are wholly wrong in seeking to break the fourth principle—wrong in their judgment of the effect of the proposals in their motion on race relations in the longer run in this country; wrong in their judgment of their duty towards immigrants already legally settled here and towards those who still have a proper right to come here and are awaiting their lawful turn to do so; and wrong in their judgment—and this is most important of all—of what will increase rather than decrease the prevailing mood of tolerance among the British people on which good relations must depend.
That, basically, is why I ask the House to reject the motion and to accept our amendment. That is why, the other week, I told the House that the House of Lords judgment had confirmed what we thought the law to be and what we intended it to be.
There is no excuse at this late stage for the Opposition, or, indeed, anyone else involved in this subject, to complain that the law is particularly, let alone deliberately, unclear or that the Government deliberately obscured their intentions during the passage of the Immigration Act 1971.
As to the clarity of the Act, no substantial Bill that comes before the House is exactly easy reading. Both the language and the structure proposed by the draftsman to meet the requirements of legal precision make understanding a matter of hard work for the layman, even experienced parliamentary laymen. But


the Act does not fail in clarity, at least compared with most other Acts covering substantial subjects. Those who have sought to claim that they were unaware of the effect of the law, before the decision of the House of Lords earlier this month, have ignored the unambiguous definition of "illegal immigrant" contained in the Act and the care with which the Act was drafted so as to avoid giving protection to illegal immigrants.
Thus, in Section 33(1) of the Act an illegal entrant is defined as a person
unlawfully entering or seeking to enter in breach of a deportation order or of the immigration laws, and includes also a person who has so entered.
Paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 provides for the giving of directions for the removal of an illegal entrant so defined. Again, the provisions affording protection to those who have been accepted for settlement are in Section 1(2) of the Act and they state that
indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom shall …be treated as having been given …to those
here at its coming into force if they were then settled here. The word "settled" is of the greatest importance. Section 33 is a definition clause, so it is the place where anyone concerned with this matter should first look to see what we are talking about. Section 33(1) provides that it is to be construed in accordance with Section 2(3)(d) of the Act and that section provides that the references to a person being settled are references to his being ordinarily resident here
without being subject under the immigration laws to any restriction on the period for which he may remain.
Section 33 (2) provides quite specifically that a person is not to be treated as ordinarily resident here at a time when he is here in breach of the immigration laws. All right, that is complicated but, if we are honest, we all know that every one of our Acts of Parliament is complicated. Again and again hon. Members of all parties and none have asked why we cannot draw up our Bills in more easily readable language. That is something that I have said, and I have sympathy with that view. All I am saying is that this Act is no more labyrinthine or complicated than is any other Act.
Anyone experienced in dealing with the passage of Bills through Parliament should have been able to see for himself, without any prompting, what we were doing, namely, that in the terms of the Act we were fulfilling our undertaking to ensure that all those settled here on or before 1st January this year should have all their existing rights protected.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Where was it spelled out?

Mr. Carr: My right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary—as did other Home Office Ministers at the time—repeatedly used the phrase "accepted for settlement", not just the plain words "settled here". My right hon. Friend did that much earlier, namely, on 17th June 1971, as will be seen from the report of the proceedings in HANSARD in column 771. So we used this phrase "accepted for settlement".

Mr. Davis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carr: I said that I would not give way, and I explained why, and it was generally accepted by the House.
While we did that, we also made clear that we did not, and did not mean to, give this protection to those who came here before that date illegally and who were therefore not settled here as defined in the Act. As I say, I believe that any hon. Member should have been able to see for himself what we were doing without any prompting, but, in fact, this important matter was not left just to be understood by reading the Bill without prompting. It was raised in debate, and I say to the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) and her colleagues that some people have not done their homework.

Mr. Davis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carr: No. Thus, in Committee on 13th May 1971, in column 769, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) raised the question of an amnesty for illegal immigrants. He realised the point and drew the Committee's attention to it in that speech.
Again, in Committee on 25th May the late Sir Richard Sharples who was then Minister of State at the Home Office,


speaking on an amendment to Clause 35 dealing with liability to prosecution said that
it does not of course mean to say that the removal of the person who has come here illegally cannot be ordered. There is a provision under Paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 for the removal of a person who has come here illegally, irrespective of time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B. 25th May 1971; c. 1460.]

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: In the future.

Mr. Carr: No, irrespective of time.

Mr. Davis: It is out of context.

Mr. Carr: It is not out of context. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee were talking about the need for an amnesty. Why were they doing that if this was not realised? There was no need to talk about an amnesty if this was not meant—as we said it was meant—to operate as we intended.
If further evidence is wanted to show that the House was well aware that the Immigration Bill did not safeguard the position of illegal entrants, it is provided by the debate which took place on Report on the Floor of the House on the question whether there should be an amnesty. The reference is to columns 472–476 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 16th June 1971.
The matter arose on amendments moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), the then Home Secretary, with a view to clarifying the meaning of ordinary residence in the United Kingdom. In moving the amendments my right hon. Friend said that they made it clear that a person was not to be treated as ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom while he was here in breach of the immigration laws.
For the Opposition, the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) accepted the amendments without much comment.

Mr. Peter Archer: Does the Home Secretary agree that that amendment related to members of a family? It was the children who were in question on that occasion.

Mr. Carr: I am not putting words into the hon. and learned Gentleman's mouth. Will he listen to what happened next? As I said, the hon. and learned Gentleman accepted the amendments without much

comment, but the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) put forward the argument that after a long period in this country those who had entered illegally ought to be allowed to stay. He asked what would be the Home Secretary's view in the case of a person who had been here illegally for 20 years.
For the Liberal Party, the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) raised the same point and asked what would be the position after the Bill became law of those who had in the past entered illegally. The House must admit that both those questions were absolutely specific and on the point. This is how my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary replied:
This is a matter of discretion. If a man has been here for a very long time, it is within our discretion to say that he can stay." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th June 1971; Vol. 819, c. 476.]
That answer in reply to those specific questions coupled with what my late hon. Friend the then Minister of State said, which I quoted earlier, made absolutely clear what the Government intended as well as what they believed the Bill provided.
It may be argued whether what we were proposing was right or wrong, but it cannot be argued that we hid it or did not intend it. We believed that we were right then, and we believe that we are right now, although that of course must be a matter for judgment.
I can put the reasons no better than they were put by Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, in his judgment in the Court of Appeal—a judgment which was of course upheld by the House of Lords. These are Lord Denning's words and I should like the House to pay attention to them:
These men, if once here by leave, will seek to bring their wives and children over. Two of them have already applied to do so. If the men are allowed to remain, it will be difficult to refuse the wives and children. If this were allowed, the number of immigrants would be increased so greatly that there would not be room for everybody. Again, if an amnesty were granted, it would be an encouragement to others to follow their example: and that simply cannot be permitted. By sending back illegal entrants, it will help to deter others from trying to do the same. In the circumstances Parliament, as I read the Act, has decided that illegal entrants can be sent back. It has entrusted this decision to the Home Secretary, and not to the courts. It


has left it to his discretion. It is better left there because, after all, the matter is one of policy which the courts cannot handle. The Home Secretary can take into account all the circumstances. He has to weigh in the balance on the one hand the length of time the man has been here, and his conduct while here: and, on the other hand, the effect on our society if he and others like him are allowed to stay. This is not a justiciable matter for the courts. It is an administrative matter for the Secretary of State. It is very like his discretion to remove aliens, which has never been questioned in all our long history. Illegal entrants cannot be expected to be treated better than aliens. Even though they are Commonwealth citizens, they have come into this country in flagrant defiance of our laws. They cannot pray in aid those very laws to enable them to remain here.
Those were the words of Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, in giving his judgment on these cases—a judgment which was upheld by the House of Lords. So the matter is as we meant it to be, and as we believe it should be, one for my discretion as Home Secretary.
In conclusion, I want to turn to what we shall do in what we recognise to be a most difficult human problem. I have no intention of asking the police to take any new special measures to seek out those who came to this country illegally before the beginning of this year, although I am certainly asking them to do everything in their power to bring to an end this loathsome trade in illegal immigrants—and that at least, I know, is common ground on all sides of the House.
The police will have to deal with cases involving pre-1973 illegal entrants which come to their notice. I was glad to hear that the Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police Force had denied a report than an instruction had been issued to West Midlands policemen to check the passports of immigrants stopped for minor traffic offences. I gladly draw the attention of the House to that statement, and I am sure that I join with the whole House in applauding that view by the Chief Constable. I emphasise that the police will have to deal with cases that come to their notice, but in all cases where an illegal immigrant is immune from prosecution and came here after 9th March, 1968, the case will have to be reported to the Home Office.
I repeat what I said the other week, namely, that every such case will be considered not only by officials but also

personally by a Minister. We shall consider carefully, and with understanding, all relevant factors. We shall take into account the length of time the man has been in this country. We shall take into account the strength of his connections here, together with his personal history, including employment record and the like. We shall also take account of his family circumstances and give full weight to them. Age and medical condition will also be considered as will any other compassionate circumstances. We shall also be ready to consider representations which may be made by the immigrant or on his behalf by hon. Members or by anyone else who may be in a position to make representations on his behalf—and that goes for the particular case mentioned by the hon. Member for Hitchin and the other nine cases to which she referred. I give the hon. Lady and the House that absolute assurance. We believe that this is the right way to deal with this difficult question, taking the sum total of factors into account, rather than laying down rigid rules which are a direct invitation to evasion and exploitation. We are not unaware of the difficulties and sometimes the suffering that lies behind these cases. We shall temper the firmness which we believe is necessary in the interests of our community as a whole with real compassion in individual cases.
I do not think that we shall be found wanting in sympathetic consideration, but I could not consistently with what I conceive to be my duty give a blanket assurance that everyone who came here illegally before a particular date should not be removed. This is not, in our view, the way to deal with the matter. It must remain the normal practice when somebody is found to be in this country illegally, to send him away.
Are the Opposition saying to the country that men who knew they were coming illegally, who paid money to be smuggled in, who are without wives and children here, should not only be allowed to stay but later to bring in their wives and children and thus gain a wholly unfair advantage over those who have a legal right to come and are properly awaiting their turn to come and to whom we have a real obligation? That is what the motion says, and that is why I ask the House to reject the motion and to support the amendment.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Peter Archer: This debate is about a number of specific individuals. It is about those who entered the United Kingdom without permission between 9th March 1968 and what my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) has called the passing of this Bill. We on this side accept that it is the passing of the Bill, when it reached the Statute Book and when everybody was in a position to know its contents and to know their position, which was in question, and not necessarily the date when it became activated.
The debate also relates to a small number of people who entered before 9th March 1968, having been specifically refused permission to land. It does not apply to any future entrants. There is no question of encouraging would-be entrants in the future to come here illegally. They know that if they enter illegally they are caught by this provision. It does not apply to anybody who has entered since the passing of the Bill or to anybody who at the date of the passing of the Bill had not been here for a period of six months. It relates to specific people who could be ascertained, although in view of the Home Secretary's attitude it is not likely that they will come forward and announce themselves. Furthermore, they are people who have been in this country for some time. They are people who at the date of the passing of the Bill had acquired a status. It may be pointless to enter into any semantic argument about whether it should be called a right. They appear to have been given to understand, quite reasonably, that they were here as members of the community and were in no danger of being removed.
The Home Secretary said that the British people are normally basically tolerant. I believe that they are normally basically fair and in this respect they are on the side of my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin. How these illegal immigrants arrived is not something we seek to condone, but the facts are that now many of them have put down roots, have obtained steady work, and have established a position in the community, keeping a family and making a contribution. They face the possibility of losing all that and of being returned to a country where they may not be gladly received,

and where they may have few economic prospects, and indeed they may possibly be reduced to a condition of statelessness.
This is a grave penalty to pay for their original offence, particularly when we remember that their offence may simply have been that they succumbed to a temptation to enter a land where they saw the promise of a new beginning. We do not condone what they did, but they are entitled to justice—and justice consists of tempering the penalty to the gravity of the offence. If a court were to consider the matter it might take a lenient view.
It may be that the right hon. Gentleman will weigh all the appropriate factors when he considers the matter. But he does not inspire a great deal of confidence in those concerned, because in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central, (Mr. Clinton Davis) on 12th June he said that the normal practice for anyone in this position would be to remove him. The normal practice would be to impose a penalty quite disproportionate in some cases to the nature of the offence.
It may be that this is the effect of the Act and that it was there in the Act for us all to spell out. If some of us were less than clear about the point, we were not entirely alone. May I, too, offer a quotation? In the course of the Report stage the then Home Secretary said:
I said at an earlier stage that I did not intend in any way to prejudice the position of people already here."—[OFFIGAL REPORT, 16th June 1971; Vol. 819, c. 550.]
There was no mention there of the word "settled". There was no suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman was using some technical formula. If there was a confusion, it was a confusion which the right hon. Gentleman himself shared.
The Home Secretary apparently does not agree. However, if one reads the whole passage one sees that the then Home Secretary began with a reference to "the particular question of people already resident here". There was no reservation in what he told the House.

Mr. R. Carr: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that there were many prior occasions when Home Office Ministers used the phrase "accepted for settlement". But the use


of the word "here" ought not to be taken out of context.

Mr. Archer: That is my precise point. There were occasions when Ministers gave what appeared to be a sweeping promise in what later transpired to be guarded terms. They point out now that if we read the small print it can be interpreted differently. But occasionally they said it without reservation. So either they were deliberately misleading the House, which I do not believe, or they missed the point themselves.
If there are people who are liable to pay so heavy a penalty for that kind of offence there will be a large number of people at the mercy of every snooper who stumbles across their secret and of every blackmailer who picks up their skeleton. It cannot be healthy for any community to create a class of blackmail fodder.
The feeling of anxiety has been expressed by a large number of people who cannot be said to have any personal axe to grind. It was expressed in a letter to The Times on 12th June by a large number of people concerned with the Campaign for Racial Justice, including a number of members of the Church who on no showing can be said to have any specific axe to grind. It has been expressed by a number of trade unionists. It has been expressed by the Government's own authoritative advisers in the Community Relations Council and the Race Relations Board. It has been expressed by Justice, again an all-party organisation whose objectivity is not in question.
Those who break the law should obviously be brought to justice. But it is justice to which they are entitled. The penalty should be proportionate to the offence. Surely it is common sense to encourage any offender to believe that if he behaves honestly for a substantial period, works hard, seeks to pay his debt and purges his offence, there comes a time when the past is forgotten. That is the purpose of another piece of legislation going through Parliament at the moment. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Bill has already received its full passage in another place, although we are told that the Government do not propose to give sufficient time for it to be

debated fully in this House. But the principle there is precisely the same.
It does not make sense to cause people to believe that however hard they work, whatever their record of honesty and whatever part they play in the community, their past will never be forgotten.
It is not just we on the Opposition side who say that. It was said in the course of Third Reading by the hon. Member who at that time was Minister of State at the Home Office. He said:
The enemy of good community relations—and, after all, this is a Bill which to a large extent is about community relations—is fear." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th June 1971; Vol. 819, c. 732.]
That is what this motion is about, and I do not seek to improve upon the way it was expressed by the Minister of State.

8.25 p.m.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: This is a short debate, and I shall be as brief as the complexities of the subject matter allow.
The decision in the case of these illegal immigrants was reached by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, the supreme court of appeal in this country, having received careful consideration there following equally careful consideration in the courts below. At each stage the appellants' case was presented by eminent counsel. At each stage the human background to the legal problems was clearly and sympathetically in the minds of experienced judges. All this constitutes a situation of which we should be proud. We may well ask in how many countries we could envisage an equal care, a corresponding thoroughness and a parallel equity.
As a result, a conclusion has been reached that illegal immigrants arriving here before 1st January 1973 shall not have a legal and automatic right to remain. However, the conclusion does not involve a blanket or automatic expulsion. The appellants still have the right to apply for leave to remain. They still have the right for their individual cases to be considered on their merits, including the fact of illegal entry, but including also family, personal and compassionate circumstances, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on 12th June and


confirmed today. This, again, is a situation of which we may well feel proud and an approach which might well be emulated in certain other countries.
It is not for us to seek to re-try the issues of law after these thorough judicial processes. Hon. Members can and should read the speeches of the Lords of Appeal for themselves. I content myself therefore with drawing attention to some significant points.
In this matter there were two issues to be decided: first, were the appellants illegal immigrants; and, secondly, if so, were they settled in the United Kingdom within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971—that is to say, without being in breach of the immigration laws, were they so settled as to obtain the right to remain here indefinitely?
On the first of those two questions there was unanimity that all three appellants were illegal immigrants. Few points of law are unarguable, and counsel very properly make the best use of what material they have; but in this case, as the attempt to show that the appellants were not illegal immigrants involved arguing that there was a distinction fundamental for this purpose between landing and entry into the United Kingdom, the House will see that it was, on the face of it, hardly a promising line of argument. In respect of one of the three appellants there was indeed unanimity on the second issue also—that he could not be considered to be settled in the United Kingdom because he was clearly in breach of the immigration laws and therefore excluded by the statutory definition.
If the other two appellants are to be regarded as not being in breach of the immigration laws and therefore entitled to be regarded as settled in the United Kingdom, a curious distinction arises from a technical difference between Section 4 of the 1962 Act and the later Section 4A added in 1968. Whereas Section 4 provided that entry after refusal should be a continuing offence, Section 4A did not make it a continuing offence to gain entry by evading examination by an immigration officer. It made it a summary offence subject to the ordinary six months' limit for prosecution.
So, in effect, looking at these cases, one appellant was clearly in breach of the immigration laws on any view, because he had originally been refused entry, whereas it could be argued that the other two were not in breach because they had never been refused entry. The reason that they had not been refused entry was that they had never asked for entry.
Looking at the merits of the matter, is it necessarily worse to give legal methods a chance and enter clandestinely only when refused entry than to disregard the law from the outset and to enter clandestinely without making any effort to comply with the legal requisites for entry? I do not think that many people would give an automatic or unhesitating affirmative to the proposition that it is.
But let us consider the dilemma in which Parliament and the Executive are placed if they are to take any course other than that recommended by my right hon. Friend. They must either give a wholesale, comprehensive amnesty, including those who have at all times been in continuing and incontestable breach of the immigration laws by having entered clandestinely after refusal, or discriminate against those who at least gave legal methods a try in favour of those who did not even do that.
It is said that the Act is not clear—at any rate, not as clear as it should be—having regard to its retroactive element. I accept that the draftsmanship of this, as of other statutes, may be subject to legitimate criticism. Indeed, it was criticised by Lords Wilberforce and Salmon in the terms quoted by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams). Unfortunately, it is far from unique in this. Perfect draftsmanship is not easy to achieve in the over-burdened state of our Statute Book.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir D. Walker Smith: No. This is a short debate, and it would not be right to give way.
I recall a case of my own in the House of Lords 20 years ago on the construction of a statute far older than this Act in which we succeeded by three Lords of Appeal to two, having had three


judges of the Court of Appeal unanimously against us and before that three judges of the Divisional Court unanimously in our favour. That was a six to five head count 20 years ago, and still those provisions remain on the Statute Book unamended.
I do not accept that the drafting of the 1971 Act is imprecise. It may be difficult, but it is not imprecise. In a practical sense, the meaning and effect are not too difficult to arrive at. It is the contrary argument that requires a somewhat sophisticated approach.
Lord Wilberforce, giving his judgment in the House of Lords, put it in this way:
To say, as the appellants must that a man may be an illegal entrant, because he entered the United Kingdom in breach of the immigration laws, and yet may not be there in breach of the immigration laws is too subtle an argument for me to accept.
Those who know Lord Wilberforce know that he has as subtle and distinguished a mind as probably anybody in the country. Earlier he said:
For myself, I would be prepared to go further and if there was real doubt to give the two appellants the benefit of it. … But, in my opinion, section 33(2) admits of no doubt.
The House must consider this.
Our method of interpretation of the law in this country is to look at the words of a statute and to distil from them in their context their natural meaning. On that basis, by a four-to-one majority, the highest court in the land has found the meaning clear. But let us suppose that we adopt the alternative Continental approach, the approach of looking at les travaux préparatoires, that we allow evidence of what the statute was intended to mean.
What evidence is most material? Obviously, the evidence of those who drafted and formulated the law. Their evidence is clear. My right hon. Friend has said, clearly and unequivocally, that that is what the Act was intended to mean, and he has today supported his assertion by impressive citations from the passage of the Bill through Parliament which must have convinced every objective and receptive person.
I do not speak in any spirit of complacency about the immigration laws or about our nationality laws as such—I am on the record as to that. The pattern,

at any rate until 1971, was piecemeal, inchoate, and unsatisfactory. The original Act left a conspicuous void in 1962, what is known as the Bhagwan gap from the case of the Queen against Bhagwan. The 1962 Act made everything—refusal of admission, directions for removal, all the work of the immigration officer—dependent on the taking of the first statutory step, that is, the examination by an immigration officer within 24 hours of landing. If that first step could be evaded, nothing could be done thereafter.
Of course, subsequent events make that statutory gap seem incredible, but that is the advantage of hindsight. The 1962 law was obviously devised to deal with an anticipated pattern of lawful entry through the ports of this country. What was not foreseen was the ingenuity with which the gap could be identified and the vigour with which it would be exploited. It was not until the 1971 Act that the gap was effectively closed, by which time many illegal immigrants had landed on deserted stretches of beach, avoiding the 24-hour examination on which slender base the whole structure of our immigration control rested.
We have to see the situation now against that background. Lord Diplock said in the Bhagwan case, quoted in 1962 Appeal Cases:
The inference from this is that the method of control enacted was intended to be experimental. Parliament was to have an opportunity of seeing how it worked.
We have seen how the control has worked. We have seen the respects in which it has not worked and we have seen the reasons why. It is against this background and in this context that my right hon. Friend, a humane as well as a wise and experienced Minister, has made his decision and asks us today to approve it.
I think that we should do so. Almost inevitably—this is supported by the great authority of Lord Denning, whose judgment my right hon. Friend cited—any reversal now would weaken the respect for the law of those determined to break it and make harder the task of those who have to enforce it.
The position is admirably stated in Lord Wilberforce's speech giving the majority decision in the House of Lords:
It must not be overlooked what the character of this legislation is. It is concerned


with the control of immigration into an overcrowded island; persons who have slipped in outside the controls may well make it more difficult for others to come in. So it is not unreasonable that persons who came in illegally in this way should be denied an automatic right to remain indefinitely and should have the opportunity of applying for leave to remain, and in the final resort should have to have their cases considered on a balance of merits and in relation to other cases by the Secretary of State.
In the idiom of the courts, I concur and have nothing to add.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Smith: I shall not follow the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) into the realms of the law on this matter; first, because I am not a lawyer, but, secondly, because I believe that the argument is about people and human relationships rather than about the law. The question whether these people are illegal immigrants has apparently been settled by the law. It seems, therefore, that the issue before the House is not whether the immigrants referred to are illegal immigrants but what should happen to them as a consequence of their being illegal.
In my short speech I shall simply appeal to the Home Secretary on behalf of my hon. Friends in the Liberal Party. We shall support the Opposition in the Lobby tonight in an appeal for compassion for the people involved.
Like many hon. Members, I have large numbers of immigrants in my constituency. A proportion of them—I hope a small proportion—are illegal immigrants. Like many hon. Members, I am concerned with the issue of good race relations in my constituency. Bodies such as the Community Relations Council have pleaded for a general amnesty in this situation. They have pleaded for a general level of compassion not on the basis of viewing cases on their merits and trusting to the Government's compassion but on the basis of a definite assurance to these people that if they come forward and are identified they are likely to be allowed to remain in Britain, provided that it can be clearly demonstrated by them that they have abided by the law and have established their roots in this country during the time that they have been here illegally.
I have already heard stories from my constituency of things such as blackmail having occurred during the last 14 days. I know of the great concern that this is causing to many immigrants in my constituency. Although we, as English people, are perhaps not given to blackmail as freely and as frequently as may be evident in some other races, blackmail is taking place among immigrants in this country as a consequence of the ruling of the House of Lords.
If the Home Secretary made a definite assertive statement encouraging people to come forward and admit that they came into this country illegally, couched in such a way that they would feel that as a consequence of doing that the odds were on their side rather than, in a sense, on the Home Secretary's side, the whole matter could be much more easily dealt with.
I shall go into the Lobby tonight with the Opposition, as will my hon. Friends. I hope that the Home Secretary will take that as an indication, albeit from the smallest party in the House, the third party, that we none the less feel as deeply, sincerely and anxiously about this matter as the official Opposition.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Percy Grieve: Both the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cyril Smith) and the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) made one of their strongest points when they said that the debate was about people. That is so, but it is also about principle. In our compassion for the individual who may find himself in a situation of considerable personal difficulty and even of misery, and who may find himself liable to blackmail—that is obvious—we ought not to mitigate the principle. The compassion is for my right hon. Friend. He has promised that compassion, mercy and clemency which in his judgment is right in the individual cases brought before him. But if we were to mitigate the principle which is enshrined in the Act of 1971, we should be playing into the hands of future illegal immigrants and of those who batten upon them.
I shall explain why I say that, because I have made an assertion which I must justify. At the end of 1970, before the Act came into force, I was concerned.
as have been other hon. Members, in a case involving illegal immigration on a very large scale. During the course of that case I learned a great deal about the way in which it is conducted and about the way in which, by their blandishments, those who batten on the immigrants are able to assure them that when they come to this country they may get away with it.
We know only the tip of the iceberg. There is a vast international organisation bringing immigrants illegally into this country. It existed then and it still exists, and I join with my right hon. Friend in hoping that the police will not mitigate for one moment their own struggle against this illegal immigration, which is akin and even possibly related to that other form of smuggling which is so serious to our society today, the smuggling of drugs. The tourist officers—if such they may be called—of this organisation in India and Pakistan say to the would-be immigrants, "We will get you to Britain." They ferry them across Europe for large sums of money. They have centres in Frankfurt, Paris, Brussels, Ostend. There they lie low till it is time for them to slip across the Channel or the North Sea in small boats. They are even, as in the case with which I was concerned, put on boards slung under buses brazenly transported on the Channel ferry.
Those responsible for this trade were able to say to those desiring to come here, "Lie low". Originally it was for 24 hours but subsequently it was for six months. "If you succeed in lying low when we get you into Britain, you will get away with it."
If we were to mitigate the principle enshrined in the Act of 1971 we should be playing into the hands of those people because they would then be able to say to would-be emigrants from the Indian sub-continent and elsewhere, "It is quite true that you are subject to deportation but you can see that the Government of Great Britain do not really mean what they say. They passed an Act to deal with those who went in illegally in the past and who may go in illegally in the future, but you can see that you have only to be there long enough and a soft-hearted legislature will let you get away with it."
This falls squarely within the fourth principle to which my right hon. Friend referred. We have got to be firm about the principle. If we are not firm on the principle we are failing in our duty to the community.
Frankly, I do not understand the point which was made by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) who spoke from her heart but overstated her case when she said—I am paraphrasing —this would ruin race relations in this country, race relations would be damaged, people would go in fear. The great bulk of immigrants into this country can go around holding their heads high; they are here legally and they are entitled to remain here. How can it affect relations with them if those who came here illegally, those who by their presence prejudice the future of legal immigrants into this country and prejudice those who came after them, are returned home? How can it affect relations with the whole immigrant community, unless the whole immigrant community identifies itself with those who are here illegally? I do not for one moment believe that they will do that. They are much too sensible.
I have made my point quickly and, I hope, precisely. For the reasons I have given I support wholeheartedly the stand which the Government are taking in this matter and the amendment which they have proposed to the motion before the House.
One final word. It has been said—again, it was said by the hon. Member for Hitchin—that the retroactivity in this Act of Parliament was not clear. It is quite true that the Act of Parliament is labyrinthine, in the word of Lord Wilberforce, but as to the clarity of the retroactive aspect of the Act, let me cite what Lord Wilberforce said:
But it is necessary to be clear as to this at the outset. This is not one of those cases where the courts are able to refuse to attribute retroactive effect to legislation Parliament can, if it uses sufficiently clear words, give legislation retroactive effect and there is no doubt that it has done so here. The definition of 'illegal entrant' (Section 33(1)) is expressed to include a person who has entered the United Kingdom"—
I emphasise, as my right hon. Friend emphasised, "has entered"—
in breach of the immigration laws: and if there is any doubt whether the words 'has [so] entered' relate to entry before the coming


into force of the Act (and not merely to entry before a question as to his entry arises), that is removed by the definition of 'immigration laws' which includes any law which 'has (before or after the passing of this Act) been in force'. So if the appellants are otherwise within the description 'illegal entrant' the Act must apply to them notwithstanding that they entered illegally before the Act of 1971 came into force) was not argued in this House and has not been held by any court.
It is true that those who came here before the coming into force of this Act were led to believe by those who secured their passage here that if they lay low long enough they might be secure. But they knew full well that they were coming here to seek the hospitality of this country in breach of our laws. Though I hope that my right hon. Friend will exercise mercy and compassion where necessary, I am not abashed by the principle that those who came here illegally must, if necessary, be returned home.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: I shall not follow the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) into devious arguments of law. He is the third Queen's Counsel to take part in the debate. This debate is not about the law but about political morality.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) used Wilberforce to support his case. I remind him of the comments that he and others on that side of the House made when Wilberforce led an inquiry into the electricity industry. They then called Wilberforce "too bad to burn". They now call him in aid to substantiate their case because it suits the lawyers to do so.
The second Queen's Counsel from the other side advanced what I believe was a pseudo-legal argument when this is basically a question of political morality. Incidentally, I believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman is one of the few privileged people in the House to be paid by the Government in addition to his salary as Member of Parliament. I believe that is unfair. It is wrong that he should support the Government in an argument of this kind when he is almost a Government employee. It was unfair of him to make some of the comments he did.
The hon. and learned Gentleman talked about the size of the problem. I support the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) and congratulate her on the case she presented, but I disagree on the question of numbers. I do not accept—nor will anyone else—that there are 10,000 people involved. No one has any knowledge of how many are involved, but I do not think that it can be 10,000. I cannot imagine hordes of people coming here in rowing boats in the dead of night in the period mentioned by the Home Secretary.
As there is doubt about numbers, doubt is cast on the Home Secretary's argument that he is concerned about dependants—wives and children—and not about the number to whom he would have to offer an amnesty.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Will my hon Friend accept from me that I merely gave the highest estimate published to indicate that even on the basis of the highest estimate we are talking about less than 1 per cent. of the total immigrant community?

Mr. Atkinson: I accept the point that my hon. Friend makes. I want to broaden the argument to deal with morality and to talk about the people in addition to those 10,000 that my hon. Friend mentioned because they form part of the case which the House must decide upon. The Home Secretary is, therefore, more concerned about dependants—the wives and children—than he is about an amnesty. However, we welcome his comments about compassion and a review—a different kind of review of cases from now on. That would be a new experience for myself and some of my hon. Friends but we welcome, and say so sincerely, that compassion is being given to those cases where men folk have been taken away from their families in this country.
On the question of the witch hunt we welcome the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, but all of us on the Opposition side, and certainly some Conservative Members, will have evidence of policemen making inquiries about passports in a casual conversation, evidence where they have knocked on doors about some matter or another and because a coloured face has appeared have immediately


inquired about passports and their legality. I have evidence of this, as has the Home Secretary. He knows what has gone on. Some policemen will even inquire about passports when stopping someone about a possible driving offence. It is good to hear of one chief constable giving assurances to the immigrant population in the way that he has.
I support the motion and also the comments of Lord Salmon. I have one or two comments about the quirk in the law which has been presented to us and also about the fact mentioned in the debate of the difference between people who come in the night by illegal means and those who have come here legally but have overstayed the time allotted to them. There is a similarity between both these cases. By and large the immigrant groups in this country will not be able to distinguish between the fine points of these two categories and community relationships will therefore be worsened as a result of the judgment. People to whom the judgment is not directed—at least in the technical sense—will be afraid and relationships will be therefore weakened.
We are discussing a motion which asks for an amnesty for all people who came here before June 1971, or were alleged to have done so. That must also include, however, people who have come here illegally but have overstayed their permitted time. That is vital, because the Government cannot distinguish between the two. If they are to do as the Opposition wish and grant an amnesty to people who came here illegally they cannot differentiate between those who came here legally and overstayed their time and therefore became illegal residents and the others with whom we are concerned. If they are to offer an amnesty to one they must offer it to both.
The Government must also reconsider the position of the 600 Commonwealth folk who have been deported from this country over the last two years. They also have a right for their cases to be considered, even though some of them have returned to this country. Many are still outside and it is urgently necessary for the Home Office to reconsider their cases, particularly where they are

separated from their families who are in this country. The whole process of deportation is most unfair. It does not work with equality anywhere. It depends whether the Home Office has taken the initiative, whether the police are insisting upon deportation or whether, as is quite correct, in the case of a criminal offence a person is automatically deported. That we accept.
But the unfairness of deportation applies where it is not to do with criminal acts—where a person has committed only a technical offence and has been deported as a result. That is the aspect about which the Opposition are deeply concerned. We have tried to impress upon the Home Secretary and his predecessors time and time again the dreadful cruelty that it inflicts upon decent people, people who have been accepted for some years as part of our community, who have paid their taxes, have paid for their insurance stamps, have done a good job and have contributed to the wealth of the country by working jolly hard. They have had a dreadful cruelty inflicted upon them because of a technical offence. That is the situation that we want the Home Secretary to reconsider.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: rose—

Mr. Atkinson: I will not give way. It is apparently the rule in this debate, set by one of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends, that we do not give way under any circumstances. I take a lead from my betters in the matter.
What is the background to the argument that it is not possible to make the concession that we seek, despite the dreadful unfairness that has been enacted? The numbers of vouchers are now discussed quite openly. We are concerned about the A vouchers. Last year, there was a negligible number—a total of 50 or 60 people at the most—from the West Indies and Cyprus, yet there were thousands from elsewhere in the world. In the first three months of this year no Cypriots were allowed in on A vouchers, and there were only eight from the West Indies.
Those numbers must be seen against the background of our being a free house to about 200 million people from the European Community. There is an open


door for white people from Europe, but the door is closed to Commonwealth people applying for A vouchers.
I turn to the disgrace of the B vouchers. I shall not go into it in detail, but it is a blot on our record. It is an absolute disgrace when a country with the wealth of ours, a country of the sophistication of Britain, is enticing the best people from the Commonwealth countries to come here, people who have been trained at enormous cost in those countries. They come here on B vouchers which are given ad lib, without any restriction. Graduates are not restricted. Doctors and qualified people, including teachers, can come here from the Commonwealth if they wish.
It is a disgrace that we are draining such people away from those countries, which are suffering difficulties because of a shortage of skilled and qualified people. It is a disgrace that we tell such people that there is an open door to them, yet we are saying to other people who would be on A vouchers that they cannot come.
We are asking for an amnesty against the background of Britain's being an open house for 200 million people in Europe, while hardly any A vouchers are being issued. There is a complete stop to immigrants coming from the Commonwealth and an open door to every white nation in the world. In the first three months of this year over 13,000 people have been allowed in for permanent settlement, and last year the figure was 14,250. It is not a numbers game. It is not the case, as the Home Secretary and other members of the Government have suggested, that they cannot concede an amnesty because of the numbers involved. That cannot be so, because they have an open door to thousands upon thousands of people who are at liberty to come if they wish. It is not a question of numbers. The Home Secretary says that he wants to use the Act as a deterrent to people coming from various parts of the Commonwealth into this country.
The point remains that the case of my right hon. and hon. Friends is one of compassion. We are asking for mercy for those people who are suffering dreadful cruelties. They are people with families. There are those who married British girls and who have children. There are those who married in this country and who have been taken away by the Govern-

ment. In North London there are 29 cases of fatherless families, of young girls and young kiddies, who are now being supported by social security, supplementary benefits and other payments because the Home Office has decided to take the breadwinners away.
The poor kiddies have no idea when their father will be able to return to them. Young men who have good and honourable records apart from some technical offence committed long ago, who have lived here years and married our girls or girls who have come from overseas and who have been here many years, have been taken away from their families. My God, has this country come to the stage when it is not big enough to be able to say to these young families that there is no necessity to take away their menfolk? Cannot we allow them to remain here and to keep their families decently? If we cannot do that, there is no end to it.
My God, we are breaking up families. Is there no objection in the Home Office to this sort of thing taking place? My God, if hon. Members could only see them and the way they exist. What stories have the kiddies to tell? If we talked to them many could tell us how their fathers had been taken away at the airport, perhaps never to come back again. My God, it breaks my heart!

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane): There is feeling in the Home Office about the cases which the hon. Gentleman has described. However, the Home Office is normally acting on the recommendations of the courts. It is for that reason that in every case we provide the possibility for the wives and families to go back overseas with the husband who has been deported if they wish to do so. A number of them take advantage of that offer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not distort the position in developing his argument.

Mr. Atkinson: I shall not distort the position. I think that the hon. Gentleman has made my case more ably than I could ever make it.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. William Deedes: I fully appreciate the feelings of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson).


However, if he is to talk about the cruelty which we inflict on these people, he should bear in mind the people who instigate the cruelty by organising the racket, which is basically what we are discussing tonight.
It seems that there are two separate arguments which have been blurred by two speeches by Opposition Members. The first is whether, knowingly or otherwise, the 1971 Act was made retroactive against immigrants who entered this country illegally since 1968 by extending in respect of one category the fixed period of immunity to an indefinite period.
The second issue is whether the illegal immigrant, with or without committing an offence, should be allowed to reach the haven of immunity and should not be sent back in six months, three years, or an indefinite period.
I am tempted to observe that there is a certain irony in the situation to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) referred. The 1962 Act turned out, partly because of the work of the Opposition at that time, to be less effective than we supposed it might be. Until the Labour Government produced the White Paper of August 1965, the 1962 Act had fallen far short of the results which we expected from it. That gave rise to a great deal of the trouble which we now have.
The charge being made against the 1971 Act, on the other hand, is that it is more effective than those who passed it supposed at the time. I have no doubt that those involved in the passage of that Act knew what they were doing. Further, I suspect from conversations which I have had with members of the immigrant community at the time that at least some of them knew what was happening.
My right hon. Friend has quoted from the context of the debate to illustrate the fact that at least those who took part in the Committee proceedings could not have been in ignorance of what was happening. That, as he said, was why I at one stage rehearsed the possibility of an amnesty. I am not persuaded that the charge of bad faith or inadvertence really lies.
Further, we did not create a new offence which made a penalty retro-

active. The word "retrospective", which has been bandied about a great deal on this issue, is falsely used. What we altered was the period of immunity, for which a fixed period certainly of six months had always seemed, at least to some of us, totally absurd. If we have a reproach to make to ourselves, it is, in my view, for countenancing and accepting such an absurd condition. We have every cause to reproach ourselves for the transition from 24 hours to six months. One is saying in effect that it is illegal to evade control, but that if a person can manage to remain undetected for six months, he will be all right.
Thus, the agents—of whom there are many, arranging these things—must amend their terms of trade and devise ways of keeping the immigrant who enters in defiance of control under cover for a certain period. These things are arranged and they are paid for. Did we weigh the incalculable evil which springs from the situation—forgery, fraud, multiple occupation, a whole range of things some of us have had the opportunity to see?
I view with dismay, from the point of view of the immigrant community as well as of ourselves, the tendency to view the illegal immigrant as a competitor who has a right to enter the game under certain rules. Whether seen from this end or that—and some of us have seen it from both—the illegal immigrant is an unmitigated evil, not least to the community to which he belongs.
The situation is highly prejudicial to the community who are here and here lawfully. It is highly injurious to the illegal immigrant himself, probably the victim of an agent, and still more injurious to members of his family. It is an established industry on the sub-continent which causes as much anxiety to the Governments of India and Pakistan as it does to our own Government. Let us not suppose that they will be looking for soft options.
The situation also causes great confusion and hardship to those in our posts overseas already struggling with difficulties enough. I give one example. Dependent wives of those who have entered illegally here will often apply to join not the lawful husband, but another man who


has entered here legally. In the confusion which follows, the separation of the family is prolonged and our own posts are enmeshed in complicated matters which prevent them from getting on with the work they have to do. The situation also adds enormously to the currency difficulties. The Indian Government could tell us a great deal about the black market dealing in currency by illegal immigrants. The Indian Government are deeply anxious about it.
All this is likely to get worse as our controls tighten under the 1971 Act. We are making the work of the agents more profitable. The evil we are talking about tonight is more widespread than we suppose. The idea that we are chasing only a few thousand people is a delusion. If we are honest about this, we must admit that the fault lies as much with our laxity of control as with anything else. I am not speaking of the present period but of the long period in which we took a great deal of time to come to the reality of the situation. So serious did I think the situation when the Act was going through the House that I said that I believed that the extent of illegal immigration ran into tens of thousands. For that reason I suggested that an amnesty ought to be considered.
I did not then and I hesitate now to give the total which I then got and which I still retain. I will only say that the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) was a long way out when she said that 10,000 was the highest figure brought to her notice. I will not say more than that. In Committee I said "tens of thousands" and I repeat that. That was why I advanced the idea of an amnesty. I admit at once that I have totally changed my mind.
In practice the idea that we can wipe the slate clean and then crack down does not work. In effect we change the nature of the offence. We cannot say to X thousands of people who are guilty of an offence, "Henceforth you are forgiven but henceforth we will be more ruthless". It sounds all right in theory, but in practice it does not work. Moreover, it would be misunderstood on the sub-continent and simply encourage arrangements for illegal immigration.
It would be resented by many immigrants here, and that is something of

which hon. Members should take account. Many immigrants lawfully here deeply resent the actions and the reputation of the illegal immigrants. Equally, I do not believe that we can chase up anything like the number involved. In that respect, I was glad to hear what my right hon. Friend said tonight. Those who are returned will indeed be a small fraction of the whole. To that extent my right hon. Friend and those working for him are bound to be selective—whimsical, perhaps. There seems to be no alternative.
If my right hon. Friend is to exercise clemency, a relatively small number of people will be caught and returned. Our objective is not simply to intimidate those who are here—and there is no reason why lawful immigrants should be intimidated—but to discourage those on the sub-continent who make a big racket out of this wretched traffic. Only if we show that the risks here are not worth the candle shall we begin to have any effect on the way in which they work. Undoubtedly some will suffer. I accept what the hon. Member for Tottenham said about that. It seems that they must suffer so that others in future shall be saved from the temptation of falling victim to this racket which is the basis of the cruelty of which the hon. Member spoke.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: The right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) has told us that in his view—and he has great experience—the numbers of those who are at risk as a result of the decision in another place is probably tens of thousands rather than the 10,000 mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams). What I waited to hear from the Home Secretary in this debate and the debate on the Pakistan Bill was any justification or evidence that the rest of the community would benefit in any way by the measures being taken against this small group.
What has happened in this case is that a section of the Home Office which has racialist inclinations—I say this with some hesitation but nevertheless I believe it is true—has been responsible for the steps taken against certain individuals. The Home Secretary has probably


been largely taken by surprise by the decisions of the courts resulting from the actions of his officials.
Now he certainly lacks the courage to say to the racialist section of his party that this is not what the Government intended and it should be repealed.

Mr. Lane: The hon. Member has mentioned a racialist section in the Home Office. Will he take it from me that that is totally untrue and unjustified? I hope he will have the grace to withdraw.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I accept that from the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I could make more clear what I mean. I know from my experience that there are many people who would resent the label "racialist" but who nevertheless feel that the race problem is much more acute than it is, and that there are far more of them in Bromley than in Brixton. Civil servants mostly do not live in racially mixed areas. There is a feeling in certain sections of government that the racial problem is acute. That feeling is stronger where there is least known about it.
There is evidence—we have had it in briefs read out by the Home Secretary, and we have had it from Home Office Ministers in the last few days—that sections of the Home Office regard it as being positively desirable in terms of race relations to exacerbate the situation in which a substantial number of black people in this country live. As a result of the House of Lords decision and the Pakistan Bill, in the cause of possibly reducing the number of black or coloured people entitled to remain in Britain, an entire community is placed in a situation of risk or of apprehension.
I believe that the effect of the House of Lords decision and of the very restrictive measures in the Pakistan Bill will be to make relations between the entire legal black community and the host community much more difficult.

Mr. John Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman will agree that it is wrong to mislead the House by suggesting that the Pakistan Bill has anything to do with immigration. It is a citizenship measure, and to suggest that Pakistan people will be subject to a new form

of control is totally to mislead the House and to make discussion of that Bill in Committee more difficult.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I entirely agree that the Pakistan Bill is a citizenship measure. But what we are concerned with tonight is a measure concerning the rights of citizens in this country, people who have established rights to remain here. What the House of Lords has done is to take away an established immunity from prosecution.
I wish to deal not with legal issues but with social and community issues. As a result of the House of Lords decision and, I believe, of the Home Secretary's unwillingness to face up to the section of his party which is willing to upset race relations for a large number in order to reduce the number of immigrants living here by a very small proportion, we have exacerbated race relations for the entire community. The matter has been presented by hon. Members opposite as being one of principle. If it is a matter of such clear principle, they have failed to explain why Lord Justice Salmon should have found himself in such strong disagreement with their views. If it is a matter of law, it is one on which he entirely disagrees with the viewpoint presented by the Home Secretary.
We are debating whether, of the possibly 10,000 or perhaps tens of thousands of people who have come to this country, whether illegally across the beaches or by overstaying their leave, the 10 per cent., perhaps, who will be found shall be at risk of being deported. Ninety per cent. of the remainder who will not be found will be living in fear of this. The Home Secretary has indicated that he will treat with compassion those people who are caught. That is very welcome.
However, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to adopt what has been proposed, namely, that he should state tonight clear basic criteria so that those who have been living here, have been keeping within the law, have been honourably working and have been fulfilling their responsibilities as members of the community can approach the Home Office knowing that they fulfil those criteria and that they will be accepted.
I urge the Home Secretary, even now, to accept the motion. If he will not accept


it, will he please, for the benefit not just of any section of illegal immigrants but of the entire community of black people who live in Britain and to free them from the risk of blackmail, the risk of harassment, and the risk of having to live the rest of their lives in fear, give them the opportunity of knowing they can approach the Home Office because they fulfil certain defined criteria which the Home Secretary has clearly spelt out? I hope he will do that, but it would be far better if he accepted the motion.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. John Stokes: In the remaining few minutes I wish to refer principally to the effect of the motion upon the people of this country outside the Chamber. I consider the Opposition motion to be astounding in view of the state of public opinion about immigration. The motion speaks of—
profound uncertainty … in the immigrant community.
How can the Opposition ignore the profound uncertainty among our own English people about when legal immigration will end, let alone illegal immigration?
For the Opposition to demand, in effect, special terms for illegal immigrants is just adding insult to injury to ordinary English people. Surely, the prime duty of the Government is to uphold the laws of the country and to protect our own nation and people, particularly working-class people and those unable to speak for themselves who live in the areas which contain the greatest concentration of immigrants.
The motion speaks also of "democratic traditions," but when were English people asked to vote on the issue of immigration? It is nothing less than mockery to call in democratic traditions to support a policy which will lay further burdens on our own people.
I look upon the motion as sentimentality of the worst order. Paraphrasing Dr. Johnson's famous phrase, if England were fairly polled today on the Oppositiion motion, that motion would be overwhelmingly defeated. I am sure that a number of hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches who are in close touch with their constituients will share my views.
Illegal immigration must be halted. It is growing like a cancer in our society.

No other nation in the world would put up with this state of affairs. Who drafted the motion? Was it drafted by hon. Members who represent immigrant areas, or by intellectuals of the Labour Party who are out of touch with the real feelings of the people? I am glad that the Government are taking this strong line and they have my complete support.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: All the previous speakers have started by disclaiming any intention of giving way, and I must do the same, because I have much to say in a short time.
The subject of coloured immigration raises strong emotions on both sides of the argument. Although I feel strongly about it, I hope to contain my feelings, because I believe that there is here a case for giving an amnesty to illegal immigrants who entered the country between 1968 and 1971. The case rests not on emotion or compassion, but on their rights as citizens of the Commonwealth who have attained a legal status which we took away from them retrospectively without full discussion in the House. That is the case I want to advance.
As with all these other arguments about immigration, we must go back to the situation in 1962. In 1962, we all shared two types of citizenship. We were citizens both of the Commonwealth and of the independent countries in which we lived. We in this country were citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies and because we shared that Commonwealth citizenship with other independent Commonwealth countries, it has tended to be devalued over the years, but, none the less it was a citizenship which had a status and which gave certain rights. One of those rights was unrestricted entry into this country and the right to settle here, to bring in families without let or hindrance, and to apply after five years' residence here for citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies and to have that request. honoured without any kind of hindrance. That was the mark of a Commonwealth citizen.
In 1962, we took away one facet of that status. We said that before anybody could come through the door, he had to have a key in the form of a job voucher


or one of the other elements in the immigration control. But because this was a temporary measure introduced to staunch the flow of illegal immigrants at that stage, we did not go to the limit of saying that those who avoided control by not presenting themselves to immigration officers within 24 hours were guilty of a criminal offence. It was not any misadventure or any lapse by the House that led to that situation. It was precisely stated in paragraph 2 of the first schedule of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962. That provision said:
A person shall not be required to submit to examination under this paragraph after the expiration of the period of twenty-four hours from the time when he lands in the United Kingdom. …
That point was made specifically because—and I submit that this was the case—we recognised that in altering the rights of citizens to come here we were taking a serious step and did not want to go to the point of saying that that should be a continuing offence that would go on after 24 hours. Therefore, we said, "If you come and remain here for 24 hours, you are then in the same position as if you had entered legally."
That was confirmed by the House of Lords in its recent judgment. Anybody who entered the country between 1962 and 1968 without presenting himself at immigration control or who was not committing any offence was in exactly the same position as anyone who entered legally. He could stay here as long as he liked; he could apply for citizenship of the United Kingdom after five years and could bring in his family without let or hindrance.
If all the arguments about people evading control being a cancer on our society are correct, why is it that at no stage during the course of the Immigration Bill 1971 did the Government suggest that we should retrospectively take away the rights of those who came in that period? It was for the simple reason that they had acquired a legal status, and to take away a legal status is a serious thing to do anyway—but to take away a legal status retrospectively is something which the House abhors.
The situation was worse, because in 1968 the then Government said that an offence would be committed if somebody

came to this country and did not present himself to immigration control within 28 days. But the offence was a magistrates' court offence, a summary offence. There was no peculiar tenderness in terms of illegal immigrants, but people gained immunity if they were not prosecuted within six months of their appearance in the magistrates' court.
The same would apply to anyone who committed an act of careless driving on our roads. If he was not brought before a court within six months, it might be that he had committed an act of careless driving, but he would not have committed a criminal offence which was prosecutable, and he could then say honestly and without fear of a comeback on any application for insurance that he had not committed an offence which was punishable in the courts. Equally, he could not be subject to the totting up procedure allowing him to be disqualified if he committed three offences within two years.
No one can say that careless driving is not a serious matter. But we do not regard it as being so serious as to be indictable. Therefore, we say, as with all summary offences, that anyone who is not brought before a court within six months should not have his offence hanging over him. It should lapse. He should gain immunity. We say that because the gravity of the offence is not regarded as being so serious that, as in the case of an indictable offence, it should be prosecuted at any time.
In 1968, by a conscious decision, the House made the offence of not appearing before immigration control in 28 days a summary offence. It was not indictable. Therefore, after six months a person got that immunity. That immunity is no legal technicality. As Lord Salmon pointed out in his judgment, anyone who had gained that immunity could not be arrested. If he was arrested he could not be brought before a court. If he was brought before a court, he could apply for habeas corpus and be released.
But it was more. It was not simply an immunity from prosecution which was gained after six months. It was the right to remain here in the same way as anyone who had come in legally. A person in that position had the right to stay as long as he liked, the right to bring in his


wife and children if he wanted to, and the right to apply after five years for citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies. In every respect a person in that position had a status.
I regard it and Lord Salmon regards it as a legal status. The other Law Lords regard it as a de facto status. I do not care which it is. For all practicable purposes, it is the same as if the person concerned had come here legally.
The Government claim that because illegal immigration is so detrimental to race relations in Britain it is necessary to put a stop to it. That is what we did in 1971. In relation to future illegal immigration, no one had any doubt about it. We knew what we were doing. What we did was to say not that this would become an indictable offence or a continuing offence prosecutable at any time and for which a person could be deported on conviction. We said that the period for prosecution would be extended from six months to three years, but that after that there would still be immunity from prosecution and that those who stayed here longer than three years, even in the future, would not be capable of being prosecuted and could not be deported.
In 1971 we said that anyone could be removed by the immigration official who dealt with a case when it came to his attention. This power to remove was totally new. We knew that that would happen. We knew that it would happen in relation to those who came in the future. Our argument was that we did no realise that it would happen to those who came between 1968 and 1971, and I do not believe that the Government realised that that was the effect of the legislation. My reason for saying that is that the Home Secretary went through five different sections of the Act today to spell out some of the powers. In order to assert this power, it is necessary to spell it out of seven different sections of the Act.
If we had intended to withdraw this immunity and to take away this status from these immigrants, we would have said so in clear language in a section of the Act. It could be said quite simply. All this guff that we have heard tonight about the difficulty of putting it in intelligible English in the statute does not apply in this case. It could and

would have been put clearly if that had been intended.
The first time that anybody at any stage suggested that that was the effect of the Act was in the text book which came out in 1972 in which the learned editor submitted, because he had no authority from debates in the House to show, that it was right that this was the effect of it. I suspect that some people in the Home Department read the book and realised that they could make use of this power, and that the Home Secretary has had to come to the House and say, "Yes, that is what we intended all along."
I have looked through all the references to which the Home Secretary referred today. None of them unequivocally points to the past. I submit that they all point to what would happen in future. I refer only to one because I am running out of time. This one is crucial because in the end it was what defeated the three appellants who went to the House of Lords. Lord Wilberforce said that the issue before the Lords turned upon the last 13 words which were that they were here
at a time when he is there in breach of the Immigration laws".
That provision was put in on Report in this House. Introducing it the Home Secretary said:
The amendments provide that a person is not to be treated as ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom while he is here in breach of the immigration laws. In other words, if he is here in breach he cannot claim that period as residence for the purpose of acquiring a right.
So far so good. The next phrase is:
For the future it is sufficient to say that it people want to claim a right by virtue of residence here they must be lawfully residing here."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th June 1973; Vol. 819, cc. 473–4.]
I submit that "For the future" was what the right hon. Gentleman intended and that that was the effect.
To take the other line which the Home Secretary is arguing—that they knew and always intended that that should be the case—indicates a turpitude on the part of the Government of which I should want to acquit them. They never at any stage, no matter what the Home Secretary said tonight, spelled it out clearly. They never got up on their hind legs and said, "We are intending to take away the status of those illegal immigrants who came in


between 1968 and 1971 and we are going to do it retrospectively." Retrospection is the nub of the argument.
When the Labour Government retrospectively took away certain property rights from Burmah Oil there was an outcry from the then Opposition. That outcry was taken to the House of Lords where there was an attempt to defeat that retrospective action.
When, in the case of an American art dealer only a couple of years ago, the question of rigging an auction sale for an expensive painting arose and the painting was subsequently sold to the National Gallery for a colossal sum of money, the Government accepted that they had run out of time for prosecution in the magistrates' court and they then changed the law to make that offence indictable in future so that it could be taken before a Crown court after six months, but they did not suggest that the American art dealer should be prosecuted retrospectively. They did not suggest that he should lose in money the value of the property because he had acted illegally. No—that was property.
But these are people, human beings, men and women, who came to this country, who acted illegally when they came, but who gained an immunity which gave them status. On that immunity they were assured by the Home Office, by the police, by all the authorities, because that was the law, that they could stay as long as they liked. So, acting to their detriment, they brought their families across, they obtained work, and they worked and served this country well.
Now we have taken away that status from them retrospectively without adequate discussion in this House. If the House does not pass the Opposition motion tonight, it ought to be ashamed of itself. I think that it will be.

9.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane): I ask the House to vote decisively for our amendment and to reject the ill-judged motion from the Opposition. If I may start on a personal note, controlling people is a distasteful responsibility for anyone, but it has to be done. Nobody could sit at my desk for even a few days

without realising, from the individual cases with which we have to deal, how strong are the pressures on would-be immigrants and how great, alas, is the degree of deception and the ingenuity of subterfuge to which some will resort in their efforts to enter Britain. So our control has to be firm and even tough, but I hope that it will never be arbitrary, rigid or heartless.
We have had a very wide debate in a short time, and obviously I cannot cover every individual point, but as we deal with the situation that flows from the Act and the House of Lords judgment, we shall keep in mind what has been said tonight on both sides of the House.
I followed the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon), whose sincerity I do not question, through the history of the various Acts, but I do not share his conclusion. I am sorry that he should have exaggerated the situation and I totally reject his charge of turpitude against the Government. What I will try to do is pick out two or three of the main themes of the debate and then remind the House how we intend to proceed from here on.
Again, I reject immediately, as did my right hon. Friend, the charge that there was any deliberate mystery when the Bill was going through the House. Since my right hon. Friend's speech, it has been made perfectly clear that, in Committee, the then Minister of State mentioned specifically the provision under Schedule 2(9). It has also been made clear that, on Report, the then Home Secretary again dealt with the general position clearly when answering a debate about the position of people who had been here illegally for a long time.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) said:
The right hon. Member for Ashford suggested that there might be some kind of amnesty for these people at the time that the Bill was going through Parliament. I should be interested to hear the Home Secretary's views.
The then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) replied:
This is a matter for discretion. If a man has been here for a very long time, it is within our discretion to say that he can stay. However, the Amendment is concerned with


a different point—the acquisition of a legal right to stay or of a legal right against deportation.
I want to finish this quotation, of which my right hon. Friend gave only part. The Home Secretary went on:
We are saying that, as a matter of interpretation, the acquisition of a legal right to stay must be a period of legal residence. After that, if a man claims, 'I have no legal right, but it would be unfair to throw me out because I have been here for a very long time,' it would be a matter for the fair exercise of discretion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th June 1971; Vol. 819, c. 476.]
So, from this and other quotations that my right hon. Friend mentioned, I maintain that it is clear that this House was not then under the impression that the Bill that it was discussing involved an automatic amnesty. And all this was before the Bill moved on to further lengthy consideration in another place.
It has also been alleged—[An HON. MEMBER: "Misleading."] I am not misleading the House in any way. My right hon. Friend and I have been completely frank in reminding the House of specific things said on both sides of the House and of the clear implication from those debates, which is as I have just stated it to the House. I totally reject the charge—

Mr. Clinton Davis: The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary have quoted snippets here and there. Where was the challenging assertion, for which my hon. and learned Friend has asked, that retrospective legislation was being applied to these people?

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Before my hon. Friend replies, will he indicate whether the mere discussion of the question whether there should be an amnesty would be totally meaningless unless the effect was retrospective, otherwise there could be no discussion of amnesty?

Mr. Lane: That is precisely the point that was made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in his opening speech for the Government, which hon. Members of the Opposition will not accept. I cannot put it more plainly than I have that that was the position.
We are dealing now with the situation as it is today. The Opposition have argued that we ought now, whatever may have been the intention of the House, to

introduce a kind of amnesty. My right hon. Friend has explained why we do not believe that anything in the nature of a general amnesty is the right policy at present. It would not be consistent with our intentions of maintaining a firm control over immigration, particularly at a time when that control is threatened by determined efforts to evade it, if we were to declare an amnesty for an unspecified number of offenders.
We believe that it is far better to proceed in the way that my right hon. Friend has described, to which I shall return shortly.
It has also been said that this situation has caused a great deal of uncertainty and has opened the door to blackmail. I acknowledge that there has been and still is a great deal of uncertainty. I hope that what has been said in the debate, particularly from the Government Front Bench, will help to remove the uncertainty. I repeat that no one who has come here legally has anything to fear. The only people who may be affected by this power are people who entered illegally, that is, those who have come without leave since 9th March 1968 or those who entered before that date after they had been specifically refused permission by an immigration officer. There is no question whatever of any special action being directed at present against the immigrant community as a whole.
On the related matter of blackmail, which my right hon. Friend dealt with, blackmail and the fear of blackmail existed, alas, before the House of Lords decision. It is a risk that exists for anyone who may come in illegally at any time or, for that matter, people who may break the law in respects other than the respect which we are discussing.
I can only repeat what my right hon. Friend has said on an earlier occasion. The police will deal very firmly indeed with any case of blackmail that may come to their notice, because this is an evil practice which we are determined to do everything possible to stamp out.
I turn from the main points which have been made in the debate, and which underlay the Opposition motion, to remind the House of the amendment which we are commending. The Government's amendment is in four parts. First, we are asking the House to endorse the


Government's determination to halt illegal immigration. This is a pathetic trade. It is also an evil trade. It must be tackled vigorously because it undermines the effectiveness of our whole immigration control, and on that a great deal else depends in the wider sense of community relations.
In the second part of the amendment we are asking the House to decline to give priority for settlement to those people who came here knowing that their entry was illegal. This surely is a matter of fairness. That is certainly how we see it. The people about whom we are talking, this limited category which I defined a few moments ago, are people who came here deliberately and illegally and have stayed here knowingly illegally, despite what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) about status.
Surely, if we were to do what the Opposition are urging us to do, it would mean not only allowing them a kind of blanket licence to stay here but opening the door, for all we know, to several thousands of their dependants. The Opposition seem to argue, if I have understood them aright, as the normal case that we should allow to stay here men who have been here on their own, who may then be able to bring in their wives and other dependants.
I ask the House to reflect on the makeup of the 13 people who have already been sent away in the exercise of this power in the early weeks of this year, and of the 36 who have now been detained and whose cases we shall soon be considering. In the majority of these cases, these are men who have always been here on their own and who, again in almost every case—there are some exceptions—have wives and families still overseas, and I ask the House to reflect that that may be the typical make up of the section of the people that we are talking about.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Lane: No. I have only a little time and I have one or two things I want to say, if the hon. Member will excuse me.
The third part of the amendment is to ask the House to have

confidence that individual cases will be dealt with with firmness tempered with compassion.
We shall do our best to do this case by case, and, as my right hon. Friend has said, all the decisions affecting this category of illegal entrants will be made by a Minister. We shall look, for example, at the length of time they have been here, at the strength of their connections here, at their domestic circumstances, and their health records; we shall look at any special compassionate features there may be; and we shall look particularly at any representations that may be received from Members of this House.
Of course, it must be the normal practice, when someone has been found here illegally, to send him away, but in deciding when, and what exceptions to make, we shall look thoroughly at all the circumstances. I repeat what was said about one or two individual cases which have been mentioned in the debate, that these are the kinds of circumstance which we will certainly look at.
The fourth and last part of our amendment is asking the House to accept that our policy
is in the best interests of community relations and of those who entered legally or are waiting to do so.
I put it to the House that this is basically a matter of fairness, a matter of fairness to those who have observed the rules in coming or applying to come.
I would particularly remind some of the hon. Members opposite that the question of community relations applies to the host community as much as to the immigrant community, and both are entitled tonight to reassurance. We assure the host comunity that our control of immigration is firm and effective and that we are doing our utmost to prevent those who have come to Britain illegally from establishing themselves here and getting an unfair advantage over people who have the legal right to come and are awaiting their turn.
We assure the immigrant community that the security of all those who are legally in Britain is absolutely safeguarded, that there will be no harassment, and that they have nothing to fear. They make an essential contribution to our national effort in such ways as manufacturing industry, in transport, in hospitals,


and elsewhere, and we want them to take a full part in our civil life and particularly to continue serving where they are doing so on community relations councils and bodies of that sort. I hope very much that those threatening to walk out will think again. The Government will give their full support to constructive work for community relations to give equal rights and opportunities to everyone.
We shall maintain strict control over immigration because we believe that it is the essential precondition for the

development of good community relations, for the sake of the one nation to which we are dedicated. We shall temper firmness with compassion in dealing with individual cases but we keep in mind our obligations to the whole community.

This is a difficult task. We are determined to discharge it. We ask for the support of the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 251.

Division No. 176]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Dalkeith, Earl of
Higgins, Terence L.


Alison, Michael (Barkslon Ash)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hiley, Joseph


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Juian
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen. Jack
Holland, Philip


Arrher, Jeffrey (Louth)
Dean, Paul
Holt, Miss Mary


Astor, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hornby, Richard


Atkins, Humphrey
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Awdry, Daniel
Dixon, Piers
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Howell, David (Guildford)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Drayson, G. B.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hunt, John


Barber Rt. Hn. Anthony
Dykes, Hugh
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Batsford, Brian
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Iremonger, T. L.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bell, Ronald
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
James, David


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Emery, Peter
Jessel, Toby


Benyon, W.
Eyre, Reginald
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Farr, John
Jones, Arthur (Northanta, S.)


Biffen, John
Fell, Anthony
Jopling, Michael


Biggs-Davison, John
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Blaker, Peter
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Boardman, Tom (Leicester. S.W.)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Body. Richard
Flelcher-Cooke, Charles
Kershaw, Anthony


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Fookes, Miss Janet
Kimball, Marcus


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fortescue, Tim
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Bowden, Andrew
Foster, Sir John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fowler, Norman
Kitson, Timothy


Bray, Ronald
Fox, Marcus
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Brewis, John
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Knox, David


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Lamont, Norman


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gardner, Edward
Lane, David


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gibson-Watt, David
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'field)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gorst, John
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Burden, F. A.
Gower, Raymond
Loveridge, John


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Luce, R. N.


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Gray, Hamish
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Carlisle, Mark
Green, Alan
MacArthur, Ian


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Grieve, Percy
McCrindle, R. A.


Cary, Sir Robert
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
McLaren, Martin


Channon, Paul
Grylis, Michael
Maclean, Sir Fltzroy


Chapman, Sydney
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Macmillan.Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Gurden, Harold
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Churchill, W. S.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maddan, Martin


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Madel, David


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Cockeram, Eric
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Marten, Neil


Cooke, Robert
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mather, Carol


Coombs, Derek
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maude, Angus


Cooper, A. E.
Haselhurst, Alan
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Cordle, John
Hastings, Stephen
Mawby, Ray


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Havers, Sir Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Cormack, Patrick
Hawkins, Paul
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Costain, A. P.
Hayhoe, Barney
Miscampbell, Norman


Critchley, Julian
Heseltine, Michael
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C. (Aberdeenshire,W)


Crouch, David
Hicks, Robert
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)




Moate, Roger




Money, Ernie
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Monro, Hector
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Montgomery, Fergus
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tebbit, Norman


More, Jesper
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Ridsdale, Julian
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Morrison, Charles
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff. N.)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Mudd, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Tilney, John


Murton, Oscar
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Trew, Peter


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Neave, Airey
Rost, Peter
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Royle, Anthony
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Russell, Sir Ronald
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Normanton, Tom
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Waddington, David


Nott, John
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Onslow, Cranley
Scott, Nicholas
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wall, Patrick


Osborn, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Walters, Dennis


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Ward, Dame Irene


Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Shersby, Michael
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Parkinson, Cecil
Simeons, Charles
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Peel, Sir John
Sinclair, Sir George
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Percival, Ian
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wiggin, Jerry


Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Wilkinson, John


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Soref, Harold
Winterton, Nicholas


Pink, R. Bonner
Speed, Keith
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Pounder, Rafton
Spence, John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Sproat, Iain
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Woodnutt, Mark


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Worsley, Marcus


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh W.)
Younger, Hn. George


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Stokes, John



Raison, Timothy
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Sutcliffe, John
Mr. Walter Clegg and Mr. Bernard Weatherill


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Tapseil, Peter



Redmond, Robert




Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)






NOES


Abse, Leo
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Golding, John


Allen, Scholefield
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A (Whitehaven)
Gourlay, Harry


Armstrong, Ernest
Dalyell, Tam
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Ashley, Jack
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Atkinson, Norman
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Barnes, Michael
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hamling, William


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Deakins, Eric
Hardy, Peter


Baxter, William
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Delargy, Hugh
Hattersley, Roy


Bidwell, Sydney
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Bishop, E. S.
Dempsey, James
Heffer, Eric S.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Doig, Peter
Hilton, W. S.


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dormand, J. D.
Hooson, Emlyn


Booth, Albert
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Horam, John


Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Driberg, Tom
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Boyden, James(Bishop Auckland)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Huckfield, Leslie


Bradley, Tom
Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne,W.)
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Edelman, Maurice
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen. N.)


Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Buchan, Norman
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hunter, Adam


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Ellis, Tom
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
English, Michael
Janner, Greville


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Evans, Fred
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Ewing, Harry
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Cant, R. B.
Faulds, Andrew
John, Brynmor


Carmichael, Neil
Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Foot, Michael
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Ford, Ben
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Coleman, Donald
Forrester, John
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Concannon, J. D.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Judd, Frank


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Freeson, Reginald
Kaufman, Gerald


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Kelley, Richard


Crawshaw, Richard
Garrett, W. E.
Kerr, Russell


Cronin, John
Gilbert, Dr. John
Kinnock, Neil







Lambie, David
O'Halloran, Michael
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Latham, Arthur
O'Malley, Brian
Spearing, Nigel


Lawson, George
Oram, Bert
Stallard, A. W.


Leadbitter, Ted
Orme, Stanley
Steel, David


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Oswald, Thomas
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Leonard, Dick
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Padley, Walter
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Paget, R. T.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Lipton, Marcus
Palmer, Arthur
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Lomas, Kenneth
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Swain, Thomas


Loughlin, Charles
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Taverne, Dick


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Pavitt, Laurie
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Perry, Ernest G.
Tinn, James


McBrlde, Neil
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Tomney, Frank


McElhone, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)
Torney, Tom


Machin, George
Probert, Arthur
Tuck, Raphael


Mackenzie, Gregor
Radice, Giles
Urwin, T. W.


Mackie, John
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Varley, Eric G.


Mackintosh, John P.
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Maclennan, Robert
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Richard, Ivor
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wallace, George


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield.E.)
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Watkins, David


Marquand, David
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Weitzman, David


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)
Wellbeloved, James


Mayhew, Christopher
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Meacher, Michael
Roper, John
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Rose, Paul B.
Whitehead, Phillip


Mendelson, John
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Whitlock, William


Mikardo, Ian
Rowlands, Ted
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Millan, Bruce
Sandelson, Neville
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Sheldon, Robert (Ashlon-under-Lyne)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Milne, Edward
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchan)
Short,Rt.Hn,Edward (N'cl'le-u-Tyne)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Molloy, William
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Woof, Robert


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Sillars, James



Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Silverman, Julius
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Moyle, Roland
Skinner, Dennis
Michael Cocks and Mr. Joseph Harper.


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Small, William



Murray, Ronald King
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)



Ogden, Eric

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is the original Question, as amended. As many as are of that opinion say "Aye"—

Hon. Members: Aye.

Mr. Speaker: To the contrary, "No"—

Hon. Members: Aye.

Mr. Speaker: To the contrary, "No". The Ayes—

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: On a point of order. There were hon. Members on the Opposition benches who shouted "No" on each occasion when the Question was put. I would ask that the House divide.

Mr. Speaker: I did put the Question twice. I did wait. I did not hear a "No". But I will allow a Division.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is one of those matters which is in the discretion of the Chair. I put the Question twice. I did not detect any audible "Noes". But I do not think that it is in the interests of the House that hon. Members should feel that they have been taken by surprise and have not been allowed to vote. Clear the Lobby.

The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes, 251.

Division No. 177.]
AYES
[10.15 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Batsford, Brian
Boscawen, Hn. Robert


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bossom, Sir Clive


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bell, Ronald
Bowden, Andrew


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Braine, Sir Bernard


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Bray, Ronald


Astor, John
Benyon, W.
Brawis, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Brinton, Sir Tatton


Awdry, Daniel
Biffen, John
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Biggs-Davison, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Blaker, Peter
Bruce-Gardyne, J.


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Bryan, Sir Paul


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Body, Richard
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)




Bullus, Sir Eric
Hicks, Robert
Peel, John


Burden, F. A.
Higgins, Terence L.
Percival, Ian


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hiley, Joseph
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Carlisle, Mark
Holland, Philip
Pink, R. Bonner


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Holt, Miss Mary
Pounder, Rafton


Cary, Sir Robert
Hornby, Richard
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Channon, Paul
Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Chapman, Sydney
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Chataway, Rl. Hn. Chriatopher
Howell, David (Guildford)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Churchill, W. S.
Hunt, John
Guennell, Miss J. M.


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Raison, Timothy


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Iremonger, T. L.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Cockeram, Eric
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Cooke, Robert
James, David
Redmond, Robert


Coombs, Derek
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Cooper, A. E.
Jessel, Toby
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Cordle, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Cormack, Patrick
Jopling, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Costain, A. P.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Critchley, Julian
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridsdale, Julian


Crouch, David
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff. N.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knulsford)
Kimball, Marcus
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj.-Gen. Jack
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dean, Paul
Kitson, Timothy
Rost, Peter


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Royle, Anthony


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Knox, David
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dixon, Piers
Lamont, Norman
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Dodds-Parker Douglas
Lane, David
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Drayson, G. B.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Scott, Nicholas


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dykes, Hugh
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Shersby, Michael


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Loveridge, John
Simeons, Charles


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Luce, R. N.
Sinclair, Sir George


Emery, Peter
McAddon, Sir Stephen
Skeet, T. H. H.


Eyre, Reginald
MacArthur, Ian
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Farr, John
McCrindle, R. A.
Soref, Harold


Fell, Anthony
McLaren, Martin
Speed, Keith


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Spence, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Macmillan.Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)
Sproat, Iain


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stainton, Keith


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McNair-Wilson,Patrick (New Forest)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maddan, Martin
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Fortescue, Tim
Madel, David
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Foster, Sir John
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh. W.)


Fowler, Norman
Marther, Neil
Stokes, John


Fox, Marcus
Mather, Carol
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Maude, Angus
Sutcliffe, John


Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Tapsell, Peter


Gardner, Edward
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gibson-Watt, David
Maxwel-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow.Cathcart)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Miscampbell, Norman
Tebbit, Norman


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C. (Aberdeenshire,W)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Gorst, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Gower, Raymond
Moate, Roger
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Money, Ernie
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Gray, Hamish
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Tilney, John


Green, Alan
Monro, Hector
Trew, Peter


Grieve, Percy
Montgomery, Fergus
Tugendhat, Christopher


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
More, Jasper
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Grylls, Michael
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Gurden, Harold
Morrison, Charles
Waddington, David


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mudd, David
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Murton, Oscar
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wall, Patrick


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neave, Airey
Walters, Dennis


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Ward, Dame Irene


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Normanton, Tom
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Haselhurst, Alan
Nott, John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hastings, Stephen
Onslow, Cranley
Wiggin, Jerry


Havers, Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Wilkinson, John


Hawkins, Paul
Osborn, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Hayhoe, Barney
Owen, idris (Stockport, N.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Heseitine, Michael
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)




Parkinson, Cecil








Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Worsley, Marcus
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Mr. Walter Clegg and Mr. Bernard Weatherill


Woodnutt, Mark
Younger, Hn. George





NOES


Abse, Leo
Foot, Michael
Meacher, Michael


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ford, Ben
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Allen, Scholefield
Forrester, John
Mendelson, John


Archer, Peier (Rowley Regis)
Fraaer, John (Norwood)
Mikardo, Ian


Armstrong, Ernest
Freeson, Reginald
Millan, Bruce


Ashley, Jack
Galpern, Sir Myer
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Ashton, Joe
Garrett, W. E.
Milne, Edward


Atkinson, Norman
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hamplon, Itchen)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Molloy, William


Barnes, Michael
Golding, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Baxter, William
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Moyle, Roland


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Bidwell, Sydney
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Murray, Ronald King


Bishop, E. S.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Ogden, Eric


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
O'Halloran, Michael


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
O'Malley, Brian


Booth, Albert
Hamling, William
Oram, Bert


Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.)
Hardy, Peter
Orme, Stanley


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oswald, Thomas


Boyden, James(Bishop Auckland)
Hattersley, Roy
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Bradley, Tom
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Padley, Walter


Brown, Robert C.(N'c'tle-u-Tyne,W.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Paget, R. T.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hooson, Emlyn
Palmer, Arthur


Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Horam, John
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Buchan, Norman
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pavitt, Laurie


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Huckfield, Leslie
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Perry, Ernest G.


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Probert, Arthur


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hunter, Adam
Radice, Giles


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Janner, Greville
Rees, Meriyn (Leeds, S.)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Coleman, Donald
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Richard, Ivor


Concannon, J. D.
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)


Cronin, John
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Roper, John


Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Rose, Paul B.


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Judd, Frank
Ross, Rt.Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Cunningham, Dr J. A. (Whitehaven)
Kaufman, Gerald
Rowlands, Ted


Dalyell, Tam
Kelley, Richard
Sandelson, Neville


Darling, Ht. Hn. George
Kerr, Russell
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Kinnock, Neil
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lambie, David
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Latham, Arthur
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lawson, George
Silkln, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Leadbitter, Ted
Sillars, James


Deakins, Eric
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Silverman, Julius


de Freitas, Rt Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Leonard, Dick
Skinner, Dennis


Delargy, Hugh
Lestor, Miss Joan
Small, William


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Dempsey, James
Lipton, Marcus
Smith, John (Lanarkshire N.)


Doig, Peter
Lomas, Kenneth
Spearing, Nigel


Dormand, J. D.
Loughlin, Charles
Stallard, A. W.


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Steel, David


Douglas-Mann Bruce
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Driberg, Tom
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McBride, Neil
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Dunnett, Jack
McCartney, Hugh
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Eadie, Alex
McElhone, Frank
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Edelman, Maurice
Machin, George
Swain, Thomas


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Taverne, Dick


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackie, John
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Ellis, Tom
Mackintosh, John P.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


English, Michael
Maclennan, Robert
Tinn, James


Evans, Fred
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Tomney, Frank


Ewing, Harry
McNamara, J. Kevin
Torney, Tom


Faulds, Andrew
Mallalleu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield.E.)
Tuck, Rephael


Fisher,Mrs. Doris (B'ham,Ladywood)
Merquand, David
Urwin, T. W.


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Varley, Eric G.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mayhew, Christopher
Wainwright, Edwin







Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Whitehead, Phillip
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Whitlock, William
Wilson, William (Coventry S.)


Wallace, George
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Woof, Robert


Watkins, David
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)



Weitzman, David
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Wellbeloved, James
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Mr. Michael Cocks and Mr. Joseph Harper.


Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)



White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House endorses Her Majesty's Government's determination to halt illegal immigration; declines to give priority for settlement

to those who came here knowing their entry to be illegal; has confidence that individual cases will be dealt with with firmness tempered by compassion; and believes that this policy is in the best interests of community relations and of those who entered legally or are waiting to do so.

NORTH WALES HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I beg to move, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.
This Bill authorises the Central Electricity Generating Board to construct a pumped storage works at Dinorwic in my constituency of Caernarvonshire. This works will use off-peak surplus energy from other power stations to pump water to an existing reservoir called Marchllyn Mawr. Supplies of electricity can then be produced when needed by releasing the water and discharging it through an underground power station to a low-level existing reservoir located 1,650 feet below at Llyn Penis. All full power the station will produce not less than 1,500 megawatts. At March 1972 prices the works authorised by the Bill will cost about £75 million. The associated works provided by the Bill include an alternative water supply in agreement with the river authority and the water board, considerable improvements in the public road system in the area, one river diversion and by-passes to take construction traffic around the principal villages.
Under the Electricity Act 1957 the board has a statutory duty to:
develop and maintain an efficient, coordinated and economical supply of electricity in bulk for all parts of England and Wales.
Under the same Act it has a statutory duty to take into account any effect that its proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside and on buildings of architectural or historic interest.
I invite the House to examine with me how the project enables the board to discharge these two statutory duties. Let us consider the first, that of maintaining supplies. To do that it must plan forward and anticipate the growth of demand for electricity. This demand tends to double in about every 10 years. The rate of increase in this country is similar to that in other European countries. We are by no means within sight of the end of this trend of increase.

The United States consumes twice as much electricity per head as we do in England and Wales. That is the kind of horizon of demand that we must anticipate and the board must satisfy.
Consumption must not only increase, it must be maintained. This takes us to the need to provide what is called the "spinning reserve". This is available to meet sudden or exceptionally heavy demands from time to time or to replace power losses because of some failure in a plant in the large and varied system operated by the board. It is here that the advantages of the pumped storage system are most marked. It can produce electricity within seconds of being started up. No other plant can match it for speed in regulating the balance between production and consumption.
The board has an existing pump storage plant at Ffestiniog in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards), about 20 miles away from Dinorwic, and since that plant started in 1963 it has proved invaluable for the reasons and purposes I have given. Moreover the pumped storage system is cheaper to build and operate than any other method. This came out clearly in the protracted examination of the Bill in Committee.
I turn to the second of the duties laid on the board, that it should have effective regard for amenity in locating its works. The fact that a pumped storage scheme requires a difference in levels between the upper and lower reservoirs means that consideration must be given to sites in hill and mountain areas.
These are almost invariably areas of high amenity value. Before deciding on Dinorwic, the board engaged in a prolonged and exhaustive search for a suitable site, and Dinorwic emerged as not only the most suitable but also the one where the minimum of damage to amenity would be done. Indeed, in some respects the scheme will improve the amenities of the area.
Some hon. Members who are not perhaps familiar with Snowdonia may not know that the mountains around Llanberis, Bethesda, Ffestiniog and the Nantlle Valley have been the scene for centuries of large-scale slate quarrying, with the result that the area, indeed the national park, abounds in massive and


unsightly slate tips. When the boundaries of the Snowdonia National Park were drawn up by the National Parks Committee in 1947, it deliberately excluded these areas, including the site and the area I am talking about, from the national park. Indeed, the entire belt of slate bed areas, including Dinorwic, were excluded from the national park.
For reasons which I shall state later, these massive opencast slate quarries have now almost all ceased to operate, but the debris and dereliction remain. This project, among other things, will result in the clearance of a substantial part of that unsightly dereliction with which the national park is scarred. In meeting a national necessity, the Bill will improve local amenity.
Plainly a project of this magnitude must have some impact on amenity, and I say at once that my hon. Friends and I who represent the four constituencies of Snowdonia and who support the Bill deeply respect the concern of our colleagues on both sides of the House, of the amenity societies and of individuals who are concerned about the question of amenity. Indeed, we more than share that concern: we have a vested interest in maintaining the amenity of the area. We live there, as do 218,000 people who have to earn their livelihood in the area. We are not visitors; we are residents. When projects of this sort are proposed for Snowdonia, we are the first to examine them meticulously to ensure that they do no serious damage to the amenities among which we live and from which we derive a great part of our livelihood in the matter of tourism. In our area tourism has increased, and we expect that it will increase further as a result of the creation of the power station in the district.
Usually in schemes of this kind a principal and proper objection has been to the construction of obtrusive buildings and pylons. In this case the power station and the transmission lines will be entirely underground. Moreover, existing obtrusive electricity poles are to be removed in creating the new station. This is a bonus, and as one who supports amenity I much welcome it. A great deal of dereliction is to be cleared away for the first time and at some cost to the board but

with great benefit to the district and the country as a whole.
Furthermore, schemes of this kind involving the use of water often involve the inundation of valleys and the displacement of communities in order to create reservoirs. That is not the case here. Two existing lakes are to be used. The only above-ground features will be two embankments—one 29½ feet high, and the other, replacing a most unsightly existing dam and creating a new dam completely landscaped from the natural stone and flora of the area, which will be 130 feet. They will not be bald concrete constructions and, finally, there will be absolutely no pollution as a result of the scheme.
The board has an excellent record in having regard to amenity. It has won awards in North-West Wales for this aspect of its work from the Wales Tourist Board and the Civic Trust, and some of its works in North Wales are major tourist attractions. My hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth will confirm that 40,000 people visit annually the pumped storage scheme in Ffestiniog in his constituency. Half a million pounds will be spent on improving the roads for the district, making access to the threshold of the national park easier for the people we welcome every year. No climb or ramble will be lost, and that has been clearly brought out in evidence.
This brings me to the question of employment. We are discussing an area that, however beautiful, has suffered for years some of the highest percentage unemployment in the country. It ranges in high summer from 6 to 8 per cent. and in winter it reaches between 12 and 15 per cent. Construction on this site will take about seven years, and at peak about 1,000 workers will be employed. Of these we confidently expect that 70 per cent. will be locally recruited, for that has been the level of local recruitment at other similar undertakings in North Wales, so we speak from experience.
To those who say that this is temporary employment I can only reply that seven years of well-paid work is a very long time for a man who has been unemployed for seven years and more, and we have many such in Snowdonia. Some of them have been out of work for 17


years. It is an area where it is very difficult for men to uproot themselves and to move with their families to other districts where even the language is strange to them. This kind of project is a godsend to an area like mine.
There is, of course, the argument—advanced in particular in the study which the objectors, the Protection Society, commissioned and to which I pay my respect —that construction schemes like this often leave more unemployment when they are completed than existed in the district before they began. With all respect, I and my hon. Friends who have had to study and grapple with this problem for so long must point out that the fundamental reason for the strong trend to unemployment in North-West Wales is that for some centuries a substantial population has been sustained almost entirely by two big labour-intensive industries—agriculture and slate quarrying—both of which over the past decades have declined at an alarming rate for reasons which I will not go into tonight—automation in agriculture and changing markets and cost in slate. Today we have only 300 or 400 quarrymen whereas a few decades ago we had 16,000.
In an area like mine which is so far away from the main centres of industry it is extremely difficult to attract new industry, but we have succeeded to a certain extent, and that has helped to keep the levels of unemployment from being much higher than they are even now.
The second factor in keeping the levels of unemployment as low as they are—and they are high enough, in all conscience—is that for the past 20 years we have had an almost unbroken series of large-scale civil engineering works of which this proposed works is the latest. Therefore the argument that such works create more unemployment than they displace is fundamentally fallacious. If we look closely at the trends, we see that it is this kind of civil engineering work which has helped keep the levels where they are.
The people of the area concerned—I believe the people of the whole of North Wales—strongly support the Bill. It will be of benefit to us and to the whole country. The Caernarvonshire County Council, the Caernarvonshire Planning Committee and the Gwyrfai Rural Dis-

trict Council all support it. There are no objections from the Department of the Environment, the Department of Trade and Industry or the Welsh Office, as I am sure Ministers present can confirm if they intervene in the debate. Nor does the Countryside Commission oppose it, although naturally it would prefer to have works of this kind outside the national park area.
These proposals have been examined by a Committee of this House in a total of nine sittings. At the will of the House, the Committee actually visited the site—a somewhat unusual procedure. I pay a warm tribute to the chairman and members of the Committee for the meticulous manner in which they examined the technical, economic and amenity aspects of this large and complicated measure. No Bill has been given Committee approval after a more conscientious examination.
It is a Bill greatly welcomed in North Wales. Its benefits will be felt by millions of consumers throughout the country in homes, factories, offices and farms. It will only minimally impair amenity, and in many more respects will improve it. I hope that it will be allowed its passage through this House to go on to become a statute.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I rise to participate in this debate primarily because some of the works involved in it are located in my constituency. They are the upper reservoir of Marchlyn Mawr and the CEGB substation at Pentir to which the transmission lines from the underground generating station will lead, and various water works necessitated by the change of use proposed for the Marchlyn Mawr reservoir at present being utilised by the Eryri Water Board for water storage and supply. Incidentally, these sections of the scheme are the only ones within the Snowdonia National Park.
Even if I did not have this significant constituency interest, I should seek to participate in the debate because, having been born and bred in Anglesey, I have lived with these mountains as my south-westerly horizon for a quarter of my life, and I can claim a fairly intimate knowledge of the area and its people. But, as an insular onlooker, I am bound to defer


in this matter of local knowledge to the right hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts), who has his roots among the very people whose locality we are discussing.
I do not propose to question the national need for the Bill. That was accepted by the Select Committee, and I add my tribute to it. But I cannot imagine the board involving itself in expenditure of this magnitude if it is not totally convinced of the necessity for the scheme. If there is any doubt about the need for it, I hope that a Minister will set our minds at rest fairly early in the debate.
Assuming that the scheme is necessary, why should not it be located in the Dinorwic-Llanberis area? We know that the board considered three other sites in Snowdonia. One was at Dolwyddelan, in the heart of my constituency. That would have involved the desecration of an unscarred valley of quite exceptional beauty and the erection of a dam overlooking and dangerously near a village community. Very wisely, the board rejected that proposal, and on present knowledge I should have resisted such a proposal had it been made to this House, although the local inhabitants were largely in favour of it.
We, in Wales, are very sensitive to the danger factor in this type of development as a result of the Dolgarrog dam disaster in the early 1920s and subsequent scares. There is no hint of danger in the Bill's proposals. Dinorwic is a safe location, and that is a very important point indeed.
Secondly, the area is already deeply scarred by quarry workings. Some people like to think of the whole of North Wales as being totally beautiful and unspoilt, and they wish that it should be totally preserved, rather like New York Central Park. All I can say is that they must wander about there in blinkers. We have many areas that could and should be improved visually.
Let us consider, for example, the upper reservoir of Marchlyn Mawr, within the Snowdonia National Park, which is currently used by the Eryri Water Board. It already has a dam across it, and a pretty unsightly one, too, at close quarters, with a very rough and obtrusive

access road, constructed, I believe, within the last four years as a result of one of our periodic dam break scares. It is far from being a much-frequented spot, but development under the Bill could change that situation.
In time, if the Bill goes through, I would hope to see a new grass and heather dam which tones in with the landscape better than the concrete Stwlan Dam in Merionethshire, a good access road, much less obtrusive from a distance than the present jeep track, and the half-dozen cottages and farmsteads now seen on the way up to the lake made habitable again. There is no reason why this should not happen. I am not alone in taking this view. The Countryside Commission takes a similar view.
I must say at this point that I have been impressed by the board's willingness to meet the visual amenity objections. It has agreed to the undergrounding of transmission lines to the Pentir substation, at an extra cost of £44¼ million. I hope that this wise decision will be the cue to other organisations, such as the Merseyside and North Wales Electricity Board and the Post Office, to tidy up the litter of poles and wires in the Pentir area. I understand that some low-power transmission lines are to be under-grounded.
In short, I see in the Bill an opportunity to clear up some existing eyesores and to open up, with improved roads, some comparatively neglected but potentially very beautiful spots.
In this connection one is bound to recall how the road network in the Trawsfynydd area has improved considerably since the opening of the nuclear power station there and how the Stwlan Dam at Blaenau Ffestiniog has become a tourist attraction visited by about 40,000 people a year. We have every reason to believe that the development under consideration will have similar effects in the Llanberis area.
I have referred to the board's willingness to meet objections. The Eryri Water Board petitioned against the Bill for the very proper reason that it had to be absolutely certain of an alternative source of water supply to Marchlyn Mawr, at the expense of the CEGB, in the event of the Bill being passed. Ffynon Lugwy was proposed as an alternative source with the


attendant works, and between them the two boards and the river authority have worked out a mutually satisfactory scheme, which has also met the Bethesda objection to some tree felling envisaged at one time at Coed Bryn Meurig, which is of high amenity value to the town. I received a letter of assurance on these points from the Chairman of the Generating Board last February.
The new water supply system will be rather better than the present. The 12-inch pipe from Lugwy to the board's new Douglas Hill reservoir will be under-grounded all the way and there will be no detriment to the environment.
Finally, the right hon. Member for Caernarvon has stressed the employment value of the proposed scheme, as did the county council in its petition. I join them in this. In May, we still had 1,167 people unemployed in the Caernarvon, Bangor, Bethesda and Penygroes area, despite a very welcome reduction of 350 in a single month. Of that total, 988 were men—a percentage male unemployment of 9·5 per cent.
Here, I must take a very heavy sideswipe at the county authority which has a very heavy responsibility for employment in North-West Wales. On two occasions in recent weeks, I have been faced with small businessmen in the Bangor area, one employing a dozen men and the other between 20 and 30, who are threatened with expulsion from their existing premises and who cannot, despite every effort on their part, find suitable alternative sites. This is a ridiculous state of affairs; we are in danger of missing the benefits of the present economic boom through lack of space for indigenous industries.
I am bound to tell those who oppose the Bill on visual amenity grounds that we cannot in North-West Wales live on the scenery alone. Until we have adequate space for light industry and small business development and have more employment, amenity arguments will cut no ice with our electors. I dearly wish that this argument could be conducted against a background of full employment in the area, but that is not the case. There is consequently great expectation, not only of employment but of other incidental benefits, from the board's investment of £80 million.
This scheme is clearly justified in terms of the national interest. There is no viable alternative. I much prefer Llanberis to the other sites which were under consideration. I warn the board now that, if it still has its eyes on Dolwyddelan, it will find it impossible to justify because of the environmental objections. It has largely met the objections to the Dinorwic scheme, which is extensively located in a heavily scarred area, parts of which will be improved by the scheme.
There is a tendency for conservationists in name to become preservationists in fact, to oppose blindly any modern development and to do so ruthlessly because they tend to play on imaginary fears in an effort to arouse the public. There is little justification for that kind of attitude in this instance. This is a safe scheme.
Nationally, we clearly need the scheme; locally we need the employment and the ancillary benefits of a vast investment—the trade, the roads and the other improvements. If the board is wise it will pay close attention to these things and make absolutely sure that its scheme will be something we can be proud of.
I support the Bill because this scheme is the last step in completing the North Wales generation and transmission complex of the CEGB. But I am bound to tell the board that it should look elsewhere for its future development, because the board, too, has aroused fears that before long we shall have another set of power stations and pump storage schemes and a new line of overhead cables stringing our skyline. That cannot be right. It cannot be. The board must seek other alternatives.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Carol Johnson: I should begin by declaring an interest, for the Commons Society, of which I am chairman, was one of the joint petitioners against the Bill, and I am also a member of the Standing Committee on National Parks and the Ramblers Association, both of which are constituent members of the North Wales Hydro-Electricity Protection Committee, which was the other joint petitioner.
What I need not do, however, is to apologise for joining with other hon. Members in all parts of the House in


forcing tonight's debate, for if ever an issue of national importance were raised by a Private Bill it is this issue—the construction of what, if allowed, would be the largest pump-storage hydro-electricity complex in Europe, and that partly within one of our most precious national possessions, the Snowdonia National Park. I would suggest that the ordinary Private Bill procedure is in these days inappropriate for legislation which raises such broad and important matters of national interest and, indeed, of national need, to which previous speakers have referred.
I would only add, without pursuing the point, that it is ironical, and quite archaic and unjustifiable, that it should be left to small amenity groups and other public-minded bodies and persons, who have limited resources and meagre funds, to act as public defenders of what they consider to be the public interest, and that against public bodies with unlimited public funds and expertise at their disposal. I am glad to note that some right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to bring this particular problem to the attention of this House.
I do not intend to make a long speech because I know that many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate and there is nothing to be gained by an unnecessarily prolonged debate.
I must take up some of the amenity matters which have been referred to somewhat brusquely by the previous speakers. Before doing so, however, I should like to record the fact that I appreciate and understand the natural bias that exists with the board in favour of generating electricity by water power. It is cleaner and in many ways more attractive than coal or coke burning and is often thought to be much less environmentally harmful than conventionally powered stations. But it cannot be disputed that hydro-electric schemes have a very substantial impact on the environment, and the Bill proposes considerable works in Snowdonia, works on such a scale that they challenge and undermine the purposes for which Snowdonia National Park was designated.
That area is undoubtedly one of outstanding beauty and importance. It cannot be better described than in words used by the promoters' own landscape consultant, Sir Frederick Gibberd, when he appeared before the Committee. I

hope that the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Wyn Roberts) will listen carefully to this.
This is what the consultant said:
I say that most of it, and certainly the sites of these reservoirs, is largely wild and untamed landscape. It is an area of exceptional scenic importance".
A little later, when talking of the Llanberis Pass, which is affected by the scheme, he said:
The views through the valley pass towards the Snowdon range are absolutely magnificent and unique. To most people they typify Welsh landscape. Any interference with them would be critical.…
Those quotations from a distinguished architect, planner and landscape consultant express succinctly and demonstrate forcefully that there is no valid argument against the proposition that this Bill inevitably threatens the natural beauty of the Snowdon area.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Would the hon. Member not accept that Sir Frederick Gibberd, in giving evidence before the Select Committee, was giving evidence in toto for the Bill rather than against it?

Mr. Johnson: Of course. He was called as consultant on behalf of the Bill. What I was trying to say was that being called as an expert he expressed in language much better than I can use the vital amenity aspects of this scheme.
Scenery such as that found in Snowdonia is not merely something that pleases people's aesthetic sense or renews their links with nature: it has a monetary value to the nation as a whole. In this case I need not rely on the generalisation that tourism has become an important currency earner, because the Committee was told that the three North Wales counties of Merioneth, Caernarvon and Denbigh earned from the tourist trade in 1971 no less than £51½ million, and the Llanberis Valley is one of the key attractions for visitors to Snowdonia. Indeed, it has been estimated that 80 per cent. of all visitors to North Wales will pass through the valley during their stay.
Their enjoyment and those rising revenues which they provide would inevitably be disturbed by the works set out in the Bill, which will last at least seven years. It is significant, therefore, in considering the Welsh attitude to the Bill to keep in mind that


the Welsh Tourist Board is opposed to it. Despite the fact, which my right hon. Friend has pointed out, that awards have been made to the board, the Welsh Tourist Board is opposed to it, and for the obvious reason that the thousands of people who go there to see that beautiful valley do not go there to see pump storage.
We have to ask ourselves, is this scheme essential? I understand that the pro-motors of the Bill accept that the roles to be performed by pump storage can be performed by other means. It is true that, at a price, if they were forced to it, they would have to utilise other forms of electricity generation—for example, gas turbines. As a layman I do not feel competent to comment profitably on them, but it is not disputed, I believe, that a pumped storage scheme is only one of a number of alternatives, and that there is technical evidence available on the feasibility of alternative schemes. If this is so, should not the board be asked to pursue these alternatives rather than that Parliament should sanction permanent damage to an area which is admittedly unique?
I should say a few words about the arguments which have been put forward about employment. I am rather surprised that both the previous speakers in the debate dealt so cursorily with the report of the Economist unit on this matter. This is a commercial concern which was dealing effectively with the matter and which took previous experience into account. If they study the report they should ask themselves whether they are completely satisfied that the project will provide steady local employment for their constituents for the future. There is strong evidence in the report that other major projects such as Trawsfynydd and Wylfa nuclear power stations and the Ffestiniog pumped storage scheme where similar claims were made have led to few permanent opportunities for local people. There is a risk, I am informed, that the situation will get worse if the building labourers attracted to the area for the construction work stay on in the area after they have been laid off, thereby adding to the local employment pool.
I hope that I have said enough to make the House hesitate before granting these new powers which seem to over-ride a broad national interest which it is the

duty of Parliament to protect. Our stock of wild mountainous areas like Snowdonia is coming under increasing pressure and we should remember that it was designated as a national park for the enhancement of its natural beauty and the promotion of its enjoyment by the public.
The Bill is undoubtedly a major threat to such purposes. The bias of successive Parliaments has been against sanctioning such development unless there is an overriding case for it and unless the House is so satisfied it should respect the principle laid down many years ago by Mr. Harold Macmillan, then Minister of Housing and Local Government, who said that, subject to indisputable evidence about an over-riding national interest, in national parks amenity must be paramount.
In one of the illuminating phrases Sir Frederick Gibberd used before the Committee he said of areas such as Snow-donia—
they are of more and more concern to the nation to protect them from the hands of man.
I ask the House tonight to give Snowdonia that protection.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I declare immediately that I have no vested interest in this subject. I was not born with my feet on Welsh soil or in Anglesey within sight of the Snowdonia mountains. I was born in Staffordshire.
Not many months ago a group of hon. Members from both sides argued a case—not successfully, I regret to say—to prevent the establishment of a single mooring buoy oil terminal in Anglesey. The hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) presented a superbly documented case against the terminal which went virtually unanswered by those who supported that Bill and also by Government spokesmen.
The case which the hon. Gentleman presented missed being brilliant only because of the unnecessary bias it displayed as part of his argument against private enterprise industry. This evening the monster we are arguing against is not private enterprise industry but a faceless public board.
Just as the construction of the oil terminal in Anglesey will be a vicious and disastrous scar upon the outstandingly beautiful coastline of North Wales—this view was to some degree shared by


my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Wyn Roberts), who spoke in that debate—so the construction of a 1,500 megawatt electricity pumped storage scheme at Dinorwic, and partly within the Snowdonia National Park, will be an unnecessary and savage invasion of an area of great natural and untamed beauty causing extensive damage to what can only be described as an area of unrivalled majestic mountain scenery irrespective of what hon. Members who support the Bill have said about the problems created by the slate quarries which have existed in that area for many years.
The construction work proposed by the Central Electricity Generating Board will radically alter the natural formation of the Llanberis Pass and the mountainous surrounds of the Marchleyn Mawr, irreparably damaging their natural beauty and reducing public enjoyment of the area. The proposals as they affect Snowdonia would, I believe, be inconsistent with the maintenance of the area as a national park which should be enjoyed by thousands of people coming from the large conurbations.
My opposition to and interest in the Bill fall under four headings. First I represent Macclesfield which is situated in the North-West and many of my constituents visit North Wales at the weekend and holiday there, bringing much employment to the area. They visit the area because of its scenic beauty and in spite of the crowds, they are able to enjoy the peace and quiet. They do not go to view the technological advances which were referred to by the right hon. Member for Caernarvon. Secondly, the environment in this country has been neglected for too long by successive Governments and much of our greatest natural heritage has been eaten away by the cancerous growth of gigantic technological and commercial projects of steel, concrete, glass and tar-macadam. Always these projects are explained away on the grounds that they will cost less than a similar project located elsewhere, or that they meet the national need.
Those catchphrases of "cost" and "national need" have hidden until too late a multitude of sins and it is vital that the closest scrutiny should be given to any proposals in the future which would be detrimental to the few remain-

ing unspoilt areas of the United Kingdom. My third reason is that part of my constituency lies in the Peak National Park and we are continually having to fight there, albeit at time unsuccessfully, against unfortunate intrusions of motorways or of industry. All those things reduce the attraction of the Peak National Park for the many thousands of visitors who go there.
Fourthly, I remain unconvinced that the CEGB has made out an overwhelmingly proven case for the scheme. During the Select Committee stage the board accepted most readily that all the rôles to be performed by pumped storage could be performed by other means, but many of the alternative means did not appear in the board's comparison of costs. The estimated financial saving forms a significant part of the board's case but if the project goes ahead the saving will be less than 1½p per year for 30 years for each individual in the country. Does that saving justify the desecration of this area of outstanding beauty? I do not believe that it does.
There is no evidence either to indicate that the scheme would bring long-term economic benefits to the area, but rather that it would tend to aggravate the unemployment situation. That fact can be substantiated by studying the effects of recent large construction works on the economy of North Wales. The Welsh Tourist Board opposes the proposals because it feels that substantial revenue from the tourist trade might be jeopardised by the spoliation of the area and the increased industrialisation which a project like this would bring. The economic disadvantages of the scheme could well be considerable.
However, my main objection to the proposals is basically environmental, particularly as there is a blatant lack of evidence of any absolute need for the Dinorwic scheme to justify over-riding the purposes of the Snowdonia National Park. The hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) read out part of the evidence given by Sir Frederick Gibberd, the landscape consultant to the promoters, the CEGB, in cross-examination. When questioned on the general character of the Snowdonia Park, Sir Frederick said:
I say that most of it—and certainly the sites of these reservoirs—is largely a wild untamed landscape. It is an area of exceptional


scenic importance. I am of the opinion that as areas of wild and untamed landscape are becoming increasingly scarce they are of more and more concern to the nation to protect them from the hand of man. My view is that any landscape architect would regret the intrusion of engineering works into a National Park. It does not matter how well these works might be designed.
That was said by a respected man, working for the promoters, in the full knowledge of the sort of camouflage that the CEGB and the construction workers will add to the face of the dam and other construction works. He continued:
On the other hand, I am bound to say that it was not the intention of the National Parks Act that it should determine land use until Doomsday.
He added that very sensibly. I acknowledge the reason for, and validity of, the last sentence. Sir Frederick has said what needs to be said, and he says it as an eminent and acknowledged expert.
In the glaring absence of a proven need for the scheme, I hope that the House will very carefully consider the pros and cons before reaching a decision.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Oswald: It is a rare occasion for me to address this august House. As a Scotsman, I make no apology for taking part in a purely Welsh debate. We may pronounce the word "Celt" differently, but there is an affinity between us.
I am forced to my feet because I was selected to be the chairman of the Committee whose duty it was to hear the evidence for and against the proposal to create a hydro-electric complex in North Wales.
It is with deep regret that I record that Sir Malcom Stoddar-Scott, who was the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon and a member of my Committee, has passed away. I consider it my duty tonight to pay my deepest respects to him for his advice and for his submissions on the matter before the House, and to convey our deepest sympathy to his bereaved family in this, their hour of sorrow.
I am more than surprised at the hon. Members who have the temerity to oppose the consideration of the Bill. I say that advisedly, because every consideration was taken into account in the submissions made by the promoters and the petitioners.
The three other members of my Committee, besides myself, were deeply interested in the Bill and were at all times open to be convinced by evidence from either side.
I am personally interested in the subject and I claim to have more knowledge of hydro-electric projects than any hon. Member. I was involved in the North British Aluminium projects at Kinlochleven, Fort William—that is Ben Nevis—and at Foyers at the outbreak of the last world war. I have more than a passing knowledge of the subject, which I hope I showed in no uncertain fashion when I was cross-examining the witnesses before the Committee.
It is a well-known fact that a chairman is required to be neutral and to listen to every word which is said and to any submission which is made. I claim that I was more than fair and more than generous to both sides of the Committee. No one can say that I was unfair to either side. I can publicly state that I gave the petitioners every opportunity to progress their case. Hon. Members may laugh, but if they look at the minutes it will be seen that I stopped the Committee's proceedings to give the Queen's Counsel representing the petitioners the opportunity to consult with the promoters. That is something which has never happened during the proceedings of a Select Committee in the past.
Apparently the main point in this short debate is what damage is likely to accrue to the landscape in the region in which the project is planned. That is laughable in the extreme. It must be appreciated that the promoters have gone out of their way to appease the objectors. It is passing strange that the petitioners accepted the promoters' evidence that more generating plant must be constructed in the late 1970s.
In the course of the petitioners' evidence the Committee was asked to consider an alternative to hydro-electricity. It was suggested that a gas turbine installation would be preferable to hydro-electricity. There was no actual objection to the site at that stage.
A further alternative was that we should introduce a compressed air storage system. The Committee then learned that the compressed air storage system was purely theoretical. Two days


out of the nine days which the Committee sat were lost as a result of discussing that theoretical proposal. It was proposed that the system should be brought about by finding caves in Cheshire where there are some salt mines. The proposal was that there should be sealed off any porous system of rock salt and then by installing a pipe we should pump compressed air into the cave and thereby use the compressed air for the purpose of propelling the turbines to drive the dynamos to make electricity.
I asked the expert, who was brought all the way from Sweden, whether he could tell me where the Committee could inspect such an installation. He had to confess that it was purely theoretical and that there was no such installation anywhere in the wide world.
It was important to consider this theoretical proposition, but the Committee also appreciated that the cost of the proposed installation would be about £75 million and that the project would give employment in the first two years for some 1,000 persons and that on completion some 40 to 50 local people would have permanent employment, mostly from North Wales.
One has to visit the site. I want to put it on record that this was only the second occasion upon which a Select Committee by permission of the House has been enabled to leave this august building to view a site. The first occasion was in dealing with the Thames barrier system not so many weeks ago. I took the opportunity, because of the conflicting arguments, to decide that my Committee should visit the site in Wales, which we did. We saw at first hand what was being proposed by the promoters and by the objectors.
We had had written evidence which was very convincing but on site it was found wanting. We found that to be the case in no uncertain fashion. I will give an instance. A colleague of mine on this side of the House will confirm it. I remind hon. Members that on the Committee were two Members from each side of the House.
In the written evidence it had been pointed out that there was a very interesting hand-made wall which contained some very interesting specimens of

the flora in the area, and that there was also a rowan tree in this individual's garden.
When we arrived at the site, my hon. Friend, who was in the first car, immediately asked the individual concerned, who had been riding in my car, to show us this magnificent specimen of lovely hand-made wall containing these magnificent specimes of flora. The person showed us. It was what is called in Scotland a "dry stane dyke". It was explained that the deposit was blown up from time to time and that birds could carry the seeds on the breeze of the day and the evening and deposit them on the "dry stane dyke".
My hon. Friend pointed out that he had noticed all these flora on his way to the village. He was tremendously interested in the rowan tree. By this time the objector's wife had entered the cottage and my hon. Friend went into the so-called garden to inspect the rowan tree.
May I never leave this Chamber if I am exaggerating—my hon. Friend can bear me out—when I say that the rowan tree was no more than 20 inches high, with two tiny splinters of leaf on one side and three tiny leaves on the other side.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. Whether rowan trees grow as time goes on, we should try to keep more closely to the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Oswald: I am keeping close to it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I have the evidence submitted to the Select Committee. I want to show in no uncertain fashion that the Committee had to make a determination. I apologise if I am boring you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is the last thing he is doing.

Mr. Oswald: Thank you. I could enlarge on this aspect, but suffice to say that my colleagues and I were not impressed after visiting the site.
The promoters have in my opinion gone out of their way to tidy up the area. The area certainly requires tidying up. It is only necessary to view it. The waste from the slate quarries is an eyesore for the ordinary citizen. To talk


gliby about tourists coming in is visionary talk. It is disgusting in the extreme at present. It is worse than the slate quarries at Ballachulish in Argyllshire—although I concede that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
The promoters have given an undertaking that there will be no pylons to desecrate the view. All the cables will be underground. The scheme is not unique. In Scotland we have pumped storage schemes. The power-house is built inside the mountain, not at all visible until one enters the portals. At off-peak hours the turbines are thrown into reverse and the water is pumped back to the higher reservoir instead of being allowed to flow out to the sea.
The desecration point has been overstated by the objectors. We have only to look at the obsolete slate quarries, the slate waste and the derelict buildings, to appreciate the man-made desolation of the area. The proposals in this Bill will mean that this area will be improved by the removal of the waste and the buildings, and by the production of electricity for the region for at least the next 50 years.
I have no desire to prolong the night's sitting, although with a captive audience it is a great temptation. I am sorely tempted to rebut the submissions of my hon. Friends who are against the Bill. We must consider the evidence, weigh it and be convinced for or against the scheme. Having sat for nine long days listening to all the evidence, and having visited the site and questioned all the witnesses, we must come to a verdict. I trust that the House will approve this Bill.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bray: It was my pleasure to sit on the Committee which examined this Bill with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Oswald) and I endorse every word he has spoken. I also ask the leave of the House to raise certain points which he mentioned. I will deal first with the compressed air storage scheme, the so-called alternative. This was an unproved project which it was proposed should use industrial turbines of a size as yet unknown. It would be located at Winsford, Cheshire. The whole of the caverns would be leached out hydraulically. No

suggestions were made as to how the brine should be disposed of or what would be the ecological effects of this substance. Further the Committee was not really told that it would also involve a tank farm, an almost conventional power station plus railway sidings and other things—all to be wished on the county of Cheshire by the petitioners. That was just one issue.
Great play was also made of the effect on the flora and fauna and of how contractor's plant would damage the soil and the general terrain. During the consideration of that Bill I travelled up to the area in Westmorland on the M6 between Tebay and Orton where the conditions are somewhat similar. At that point the M6 had been constructed for only about three years, but it had already been integrated into the landscape.
If one looks beyond the M6 to where tanks had run during and after the Second World War, one sees that the damage is still evident. I suggest that that supports the claims of the promoters that they could landscape the land, clean up the damage which may have been caused and, in effect, produce a better environment, and I agree entirely with them.
There was also presented to the Committee a petition which was claimed to have the best part of 5,000 signatures appended to it. These had been collected by the petitioners over a period of about 12 months. Some interesting things come out of that. Only 544 local people, that is those resident in the whole of North Wales, bothered to sign the petition, and that out of a population of 218,000. In other wards, this petition was not worth the paper on which it was written, particularly when one views the sentiments given to those who had been asked to sign it. They were emotive—I nearly said erotic—and they were definitely misleading.
A number of signatures have been added to the early-day motion against the Bill. As far as I can recollect—and I took careful note of this in Committee —only one of those petitioners sat in for a few minutes on the consideration of the Bill. In other words, whilst the petitioners may make emotive noises tonight, the fact is that only one was present at the hearing. I suggest that the petitioners could have learned more if


they had spent more time in the Committee
This is the sixth or seventh Private Bill Committee on which I have served. The petitions offered against the Bill are, without reservation, the weakest that I have heard to date.

11.38 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I propose to intervene only briefly, but I believe that, both on the grounds of cost of the proposal involved and the significance of the area concerned, an issue of such importance as this should be brought to the Chamber for debate. I should not like there to be any suggestion that it was in some way improper to put down a motion to ensure that there was a right to debate a matter of this significance in this Chamber. Indeed, we should not have heard the delightful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Oswald) had we not done so.
The other matter that concerns me is that, knowing this area very well, and knowing the slate quarries of Ballachulish, I am far from convinced that this is the last inroad that the CEGB intends to make in this area. I ask my Welsh friends to realise that we are concerned not only about this proposal by itself but also about the other proposals which I am certain will come forward, whatever the CEGB may say now. I say that bearing in mind the other developments that have taken place in the mountain area of North Wales.
I should like the House to make it clear that, whatever decision we take tonight, we are saying to the CEGB that it shall not bring forward further proposals of this character to ruin permanently that great heritage of the whole mountain area of North Wales. That is what would happen if further proposals which are in its pigeon holes were brought forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly; to be read the Third time.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gray.]

RATING AND VALUATION

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: The issue I raise affects every ratepayer in the country. It is a national problem, though I shall try to spotlight it by illustrations from my constituency. Incidentally, in answer to a Question from me, the Minister has said that the rateable values of domestic properties in the greater part of my constituency show an average increase of 215 per cent. as against an increase of 154 per cent. in the South-West Region. However that could happen when the region includes such places as Cheltenham, Bath, Bristol and Gloucester, goodness only knows.
I am not allowed to ask for new legislation in this debate. Therefore, I wish to spotlight the fallacy of the national rent basis of the present system and the injustice of nonsensical anomalies of the revaluation which has recently taken place and the stupidity of having a revaluation at all. There was no need for a revaluation, particularly at a time of rising inflation and escalating property values. Revaluation is merely a device to hide rate increases. It makes the poundage rate smaller, but the total rates paid are higher. If one takes the gross rateable values of all domestic properties, even with the revaluation they never relate to the notional rent on which the system is supposed to be based.
To the vast majority of people, higher property values are paper values. Those who are affected are those who have to sell or those who have to buy, and this is important in the context of the rates system. Youngsters who have to buy in an escalating market not only have to pay high mortgage outgoings, but increased rates increase their monthly outgoings and place an additional burden on them.
Rates must be taken into account in people's weekly budgets. I am told on good authority that, because many councils this year have drawn on their balances, we can expect a substantial increase in rates next year, irrespective of any rising costs which may occur in the next 12 months. An official of a small local authority in my area tells me that its rates must rise by 10p in the pound for that reason alone.
I have examined the valuation lists of one of my local authorities and discussed them with a council official. Neither of us can find a common pattern. There were variations in valuations even in streets where properties were identical and adjacent. I have discussed this with hon. Members who have said that the same is true both in London and elsewhere.
In one street, six identical properties alongside each other were previously rated at £61 and now range between £196 and £206. Heaven only knows how such variations arise. I can only assume that one or two houses have beetles. I could quote scores of properties previously carrying the same rateable value which have been revalued and now differ by between £2 and £20 for no obvious reason. On this ground alone, revaluation is a nonsense.
We discovered two strands in our examination of the rating lists. First, private properties previously valued at up to £90 were increased in value proportionately more than properties previously valued above £100. Some values went up by four, five or six times, whereas the higher valued properties went up by two, two and a half or three times. So the average man—the young professionals and executives—are now being called upon to pay substantially more in rates while those who can afford it are being asked to pay proportionately less. That is barmy when we remember that the rating system was deliberately designed to have the opposite effect.
The other strand was that council houses were revalued at a higher level than were comparative properties in the private sector. That is a social injustice that cannot be justified.
Perhaps the most remarkable injustice relates to almshouses which had previously been valued at £17 and went up to £77 and £84; and the valuation was increased by seven times, and nearly eight times in one instance. Fortunately for the tenants the local authority was fairly generous.
Even with higher value properties there is the same nonsense. In one village, property A is valued at £340, property B at £280 and property C at £250, yet property B and property C are far more valuable in every particular on a rental basis than property A.
It is no good the Minister claiming that rates have not gone up substantially because of revaluation. I have yet to discover a domestic rateable value that has been reduced. I will quote two cases. The rates paid in the first case were £22·20 last year. This year they are £30·09. If no revaluation had taken place, the rates payable—on official information—would have been £26·42. That is an example of a small property with a previous rateable value of £30 which has gone up by almost four times.
The other case is referred to in a letter which I received this morning in which my constituent says:
My bungalow was originally rated at £86, now I have been informed that this has been increased to £244, an increase of 182 per cent. over the original, but it is 2·8 times. This is quite painless until the rates to be paid are calculated, but I am now called upon to pay £86·46 instead of £71·05, an increase of £13·41 or 18·88 per cent.
The figures which I have used may appear small to some in London and the larger cities. I believe that their problems are far greater, and the Minister should bear them in mind in his reply. I should like to know what comfort he can give Londoners with, I am told, rateable values for normal properties in the region of £500 and £600 a year.
I ask the Minister how these valuations were arrived at. How many inspections of properties took place? How does he account for the wide variations? Is there enough staff in the areas to do anything like a spot check on inspections? How can the Government expect ordinary people to cope in paying increased rates on top of all the other increases in the cost of living which have been imposed upon them during the lifetime of this Government? Revaluation, with its consequent increases in rates, was a deliberate act on the part of the Government. It was an act calculated to increase the cost of living at a time when Ministers throughout the land were stopping people from getting further increases in their incomes.
I do not want to hear too much about the subvention of the Government meeting half the cost of any increase over 10 per cent. That seems to be very much like offering someone a £1 note in exchange for £2. I think that it is a fiddle, and I think that the Minister knows it. But he might tell us whether this is


automatically applied or whether ratepayers have to make application. If it is calculated automatically, perhaps he will tell me what I should say to my constituent, whose letter I have quoted, who still has an increase in rates payable of 18·88 per cent. What is more, taking the country as a whole, that is by no means an excessive increase in rates caused by this revaluation.
The ratepayers have again been conned. They face further burdens which they cannot afford to bear. Before the next half-year's payments become due, the Government must take action to ease the burden. Will they take from the rates items which should be borne centrally, especially items such as education and health and welfare—services which impose a great strain in the localities?
I do not think that people wish to go cap in hand to the local authorities for rate rebates. This is not an age of Poor Law relief, and the poor take-up in most of the selective benefits which the Government have introduced has exposed their attitude to selectivity as being more of the eighteenth than of the twentieth century. People are independent. They are entitled to be, and they have a right to dignity.
I want the Government to say quite clearly why, when even gross rateable values do not relate in any way to the rental values of properties, it is necessary to have any revaluation and why it is necessary to continue with this system—though I am well aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if I proceed with that argument for too long, I shall incur your displeasure.

11.53 p.m.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. R. Graham Page): I apologise to the House and to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr Loughlin) for not being in my place to hear the hon. Gentleman's first few words. But I was in time to catch the gist of his opening of the debate, namely, that there was no need for revaluation.
So long as rates are based on the rental value of property, we should endeavour to keep pace with the change in rental values. Revaluation is only a

matter of fairness and justice between individual ratepayers and their districts.
Although statutorily the intention we have a quinquennial revaluation, the Labour Government postponed the last one so that, when we reached this year, the rental values in use were those which prevailed 10 years ago. There have been changes in those rental values during that period of 10 years. There has been not only a general increase affecting all properties but also relative changes between one property and another. It is only fair and just that there should have been that revaluation. Of course, having been left for 10 years, there are bound to be substantial changes.
The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to what he called a number of anomalies within his own knowledge, variations in the valuations of properties which appear to be similar. It is not for me to comment upon individual cases.
The valuations have been carried out by professional valuers employed by the Inland Revenue on principles which apply throughout the country, not on the basis of directives by central or local government. Indeed, the whole purpose of changing from valuation by local authority employees to valuation by the central Government was so that the same principles might be applied throughout the whole country.
The hon. Gentleman made the comment that the lower the capital value of a house, the higher appeared to be its increase in rateable value as a result of this revaluation. I think there is an explanation for that, since we still base rateable value on rental value. It is a question of demand when considering rental value. There may not be such a great demand for the larger house as there is for the smaller house. Therefore, the tenant is prepared to pay a comparatively higher rent. Whether it is right to base rateable value on rental value is debatable. Perhaps we ought to change to capital rather than to rental values. This is not the time to debate that point, because it involves legislation. But, while we are still basing rateable value on rental value, the value will depend to some extent on demand as well as on the amenities of the house itself.
The hon. Gentleman drew attention to differences between the valuations of


council houses and owner-occupied houses in the same area. He said that as a rule council houses were valued at a higher level than owner-occupied houses in that area. I have a similar problem in my constituency where it works the other way round. I am assured that owner-occupied houses have a better amenity value than council houses, although perhaps in outward appearance they appear the same, and therefore they have been valued at a slightly higher rate.
We must have faith in the professional valuers. Of course there is human error, and for that purpose there is provision for appeal against valuations.

Mr. Loughlin: How many valuers are there?

Mr. Page: The valuers were hard pressed during the period of valuation for perhaps three or four years before completion last year, but not so overpressed that they had to neglect their duties. They carried out the valuation thoroughly. They did not, of course, inspect every property in the land. In normal valuation work one takes a value over an area. However, I think that the work was carried out thoroughly and that, on the whole, the valuations are correct and in accordance with the rents that those properties would command.
The hon. Gentleman went on from that to consider the burden of rates, the rate bill. There is nothing extraordinary in the fact that rate bills have increased this year. They have increased each year for many years past. If rate bills did not increase, it would mean either that the local government services were being cut or that further general taxation was being imposed in order to increase the amount by which the taxpayer subsidises the local government services.
Each year, local government services are increased and improved—the public demands that—each year local government servants are better paid, and each year the central Government increase their contribution to the cost of local government services. But no Government, and no Opposition, have ever proposed that the taxpayer should meet all the increase in local government costs. It would be very unhealthy for local government if

local authorities were to be wholly cushioned against rises in local government expenditure.
Nevertheless, this year the Government have provided a bigger cushion than ever before for domestic ratepayers. The 60 per cent. of local government expenditure that will be paid by the taxpayer and will not go on the rates at all is a greater subvention than ever before, and totals over £3,000 million.
Whatever rate poundage is fixed by the local authority, it will be reduced for the domestic ratepayer by the domestic element of 6p in the pound. In addition, the Government will refund to every ratepayer half of any increase in his rate bill over 10 per cent. in so far as the increase is due to revaluation. I would deny that that is in any way a fiddle, as the hon. Member described it. From a calculation of this, it is clear that the Government are contributing about £10 million in this assistance to prevent a large jump in rateable values and therefore in rate burden on certain properties by reason of the fact that they have been left unrevalued for 10 years.
This brings me to the impact of revaluation on the rate bills this year. So far as the impact of revaluation on the amount that the householder pays in rates, it has been a very small element. The hon. Member asked whether, when a householder's rates have gone up and he believes that this is the result of revaluation, he has to make a claim on the £10 million subvention. No, it is automatically applied. The local authorities will be under an obligation either to make the refund or, if they charging half-yearly to take it into account as credit on the second half year's bill. So there will be no need for the individual householder to claim.
The hon. Member's own constituency is a very good example of the variations in rates in one area as compared with the region within which it is situate. I answered a Written Question of his recently and gave figures which showed that, over the region as a whole, they had increased by 154 per cent. and in his own constituency by 215 per cent. Indeed, when I saw those figures I looked to see whether I could find the reason for that. The reason is obvious. The houses in the hon. Gentleman's


constituency have become more desirable over the past 10 years by reason of the access to that area. In that time we have had the Severn Bridge and the M4 and M5 on the other side of the Severn. Altogether, I imagine that those who are working at a distance, perhaps in Bristol, are more prepared to pay substantial rentals for houses in the hon. Gentleman's area than they were 10 years ago.

Mr. Loughlin: The region includes places such as Cheltenham, Bath, Bristol and Gloucester, which are all highly desirable areas. How is it that my constituency has such large increases when those places are part and parcel of the region?

Mr. Page: The region also includes a development area in the south-west and some much lower rateable value areas in the area of Cornwall and Somerset, which brings down the average to that figure. But I do not think from the fact that the hon. Gentleman's average increase in rateable values is up by 215 per cent. that there is anything wrong in the valuation, or, indeed, that as a result his constituents will have to pay more on their rate bills. The average rate bill in England and Wales before revaluation was £60. After revaluation it is £65·39. Those are the figures for the whole country.
Of the areas in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, perhaps East Dean and West Dean have come out worst in the revaluation. Before revaluation they had an average of £28 to £30 per household. They have risen by about one-third. They are now still only in the region of £39 to £40, as against the national average of £65. Lydney has risen by about 14 per cent. or 15 per cent., but it is still only £44·51 as compared with the national average of £65. Newent has risen by only 5·5 per cent., and Gloucester rural by 7·7 per cent. Compared with the national average, the hon. Gentleman's constituency as a whole is still well below that average and is not, to that extent, overburdened in the payment of rates.
Should the Government go further to stop any increases in rates, further than the £10 million for part of the increase due to revaluation? The answer to that is that the Government do not have the power to do so. They can only persuade local authorities to take all matters into consideration and see whether they can keep the rates down substantially this year, and particularly this year, during the period of price and pay restrictions.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the fact this year that many of them had responded to that by resorting to reserves. But that is a common practice of local authorities in managing their financial affairs. One year they can put money to reserve; the next year they can keep their rate poundage down by resorting to that reserve. This is a common practice in local government finance. I am not pessimistic about next year in that, because the reserves have been eaten up this year, the rate poundage will have to rise enormously next year. I do not believe that that is so from the monitoring which I have had the opportunity of doing over the past few weeks.
From that monitoring of the rates—I say it is only persuasive; we cannot force any local authority to reduce its rates—we find that a very great number of the local authorities, some 1,000 out of the 1,400 rating authorities, had paid attention to the percentage increases which were agreed in the rate support grant negotiations last year and had increased their rate poundage only on the same basis as those increases which were negotiated with the local authority associations last year. Others had gone beyond that.
Again I take the hon. Member's constituency as an example. Of the five rural district councils within his constituency, with which he is concerned, four had kept—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour. Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at ten minutes past Twelve o'clock.